This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
- 17 -
make their objections ‘at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position not only to
consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.’” (quoting Scialdone v.
Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422, 437 (2010))). Pearson’s failure to object to the Commonwealth’s
argument precluded the trial court from addressing any impropriety, and therefore we will not
review this untimely raised objection.
D. The trial court did not err in refusing to permit Officer O’Berry to engage in a
frame-by-frame analysis of the body camera footage.
Pearson also argues that had Officer O’Berry been permitted to testify as to his
frame-by-frame analysis of admitted body camera footage, the jury would have gained an
understanding of the video not possible by their own review of the video. He contends that this
enhanced understanding would have been helpful to the jury in determining whether Pearson acted
with malice and in evaluating if he had a reasonable fear justifying his actions as self-defense or
defense of others. We disagree.
Virginia Rule of Evidence 2:702(a)(ii) permits the use of expert testimony in criminal
proceedings when “the court finds that the subject matter is beyond the knowledge and experience
of ordinary persons, such that the jury needs expert opinion in order to comprehend the subject
matter, form an intelligent opinion, and draw its conclusions.” Thus, “expert testimony concerning
matters of common knowledge or matters as to which the jury are as competent to form an opinion
as the witness is inadmissible.” Coppola v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 243, 252 (1979).
Given the deferential standard of review, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in
determining that the jury was as competent as Officer O’Berry to watch the video and determine
what occurred. Pearson argues that the jury was unable to manipulate the video and go
frame-by-frame and thus could not as precisely correlate the timing of the taser’s firing with the
events in the video as Officer O’Berry would have been able to do if permitted to testify concerning
the video. Whether that is true or not, it does not change the fact that watching a video of a violent Jump to an indexed page (18 of 18)