Sisk v. State

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. After conviction of, and sentence for, obtaining money by means of a false pretense under Code (1962 Cum. Supp.), Article 27, § 140, James T. Sisk appeals. The questions involved are whether a Regiscope photograph was properly admitted into evidence, and if not, was its admission prejudicial.

At the trial below, the State offered a Mr. William Sraver, chief investigator for the Protection Department of Montgomery Ward Company, Inc. (the Company). He stated that his “record” showed that a check was cashed in “our store” on August 1st, 1962, drawn by Talbott & Hanson, Inc., made payable to Charles A. Neubert, Jr., dated August 1st, drawn on the Maryland Trust Company, and signed by Frank G. Hanson and Anna P. Myers. The check was endorsed “Charles A. Neubert, Jr.” It was not honored, but returned to the Company. Sraver explained that when cash is requested for a check, the Company takes a picture with a Regiscope machine.

These machines operate in the following manner. A number stamp ¹⁵⁷ places numbers in sequence on the checks. After a number is stamped on a check, a picture is taken of the check, the identification used by the person having the check cashed and the individual cashing the check, simultaneously. This is accomplished by means of a two-lens camera, located in the cashier’s cage, which takes two pictures at one time, one straight down at the check and identification, and the other pointing out, taking a picture of the individual cashing the check.

When five hundred films have been used or there is current need for a picture, whichever first occurs, the film is removed from the camera by Sraver, and sent by mail to the Regiscope Company in Fairfax, Virginia. Upon request, the films are developed and the pictures of individual transactions are sent to the Company. Sraver was not present when the photograph in the instant case was taken by a cashier, or when the film was developed by Regiscope. He, therefore, stated that he was not “in a position to say whether the picture [was] a correct likeness of what was in front of the camera” at the time the picture was taken.

He also stated that he supposed it was “within the realm of possibility” that the same check could have been exposed with six different persons in front of the camera, from time to time, if the cashier had so desired. The appellant admitted to the police that the individual on the photograph was he, but he denied cashing the check. Without further authentication, the photograph of appellant, the check he allegedly cashed and the