State of Washington v. Tatum 360 P 2nd ed. 754 1961, j.

Donworth

Facts: William Tousin of Pasco received monthly welfare checks from the state of Washington. In
February, 1960, however, Tousin did not receive his check, which was usually mailed to and left on
a window ledge in the hallway of the rooming house where he resided. The check turned out to have
been endorsed and cashed at Sherman’s Food Store in Pasco by someone other than Tousin.

Caroline Pentecost, a employee at the store, testified that the initials appearing on the check were
hers, though she could not specifically recall the above-mentioned transaction. According to her,
whenever a check was presented to her for payment at the store, she was instructed by the store
manager to initial it and then insert it into a “Regiscope” machine, which is designed to
simultaneously photograph, through two separate lenses, both the check and the person facing the
machine. Upon discovery of the forgery of the endorsement on the check, the Regiscope film of the
transaction was sent to the Regiscope distributor in Portland to be developed. The processed film
showed both the check and Ralph Tatum, who lived in the same rooming house as Tousin, with the
food store in the background. Both the negative and the print therefrom were admitted in evidence,
above Tatum’s objection.

Issue: Were the authenticated Regiscope negative and print properly admitted as evidence?

Held: Yes. Pentecost testified that the background shown in the photograph was that of the food
store and that “regiscoping” each individual who cashed a check at the store was its standard
procedure everytime a check was presented for encashment. Another witness, Phillip Dale,
meanwhile, testified as to the Regiscope process. These testimonies amounted to a sufficient
authentication to warrant the admission of the negative and the print into evidence.
Tatum was not precluded from attempting to prove that the individual portrayed in the Regiscope
print was not him, that it was inaccurate in any respect and that he was somewhere else at the time
the photograph was taken. However, these arguments go to the weight rather than to the
admissibility of said negative and print. The Regiscope films, coupled with the other evidence
presented, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of first degree forgery.

Doctrine: The admission and use of demonstrative evidence, including photographs, have for many
years been encouraged. Such admission or rejection of photographs as evidence lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Such discretion extends to the sufficiency of identification. As to the
required quantum of authentication of a photograph, some witness (not necessarily the photographer)
may be able to give some indication as to when, where, and under what circumstances the
photograph was taken, and that the photograph accurately portray the subject or subjects illustrated.
The photograph need only be sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the court and the jury.