City of Baton Rouge v. Joseph Lee Kennerson

City of Baton Rouge v. Kennerson, No. 2026 KW 0162 (1st Cir. 2026) · Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · June 1, 2026 · No. 2026 KW 0162

Summary

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, granted the City of Baton Rouge's supervisory writ application. It held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the investigating officer to testify regarding authentication of video footage, vacated the ruling, and remanded for further proceedings.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Writing for the Court
Theriot, J.; Balfour, J.; Haggerty, J., serving pro tempore
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Decision date
June 1, 2026
Docket number
2026 KW 0162
Procedural posture
The City of Baton Rouge applied for a supervisory writ challenging the trial court's refusal to allow testimony from the investigating officer to authenticate video footage.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
City of Baton Rouge v. Joseph Lee Kennerson
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

writ of certiorariauthenticationevidenceappellate procedure

Practice areas

evidenceappellate proceduremunicipal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the investigating officer to testify to authenticate the video footage.
  2. Whether a witness with personal knowledge may authenticate video footage without having originally recorded it.

Holdings

  1. A witness with personal knowledge that video footage is what the proponent claims it to be may authenticate the footage, even if the witness did not originally record it. The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the investigating officer to testify for that purpose.

Key quotations

The trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the City to present the testimony of the investigating officer to authenticate the video footage in question.
Furthermore, the person who authenticates video footage need not be the one who originally recorded the video if the person has knowledge that the video is what the proponent claims it to be and can provide information about the content of the footage.

Factual background

The City sought to present video footage and the testimony of the investigating officer to authenticate that footage. The trial court did not allow the City to present the officer's testimony for authentication, and the City sought supervisory review.

Procedural history

The matter arose from Baton Rouge City Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 25-AC-001622S. The First Circuit granted the supervisory writ, vacated the trial court's ruling, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Remand instructions

The trial court's ruling is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings in line with the First Circuit's ruling permitting the investigating officer to testify to authenticate the video footage.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…