## Facts

- A traffic collision occurred between automobiles driven by Cheryl D. Simms (a minor) and Herbert C. Dixon.
- Trial testimony sharply conflicted on how the collision happened and where Dixon’s vehicle struck Simms’s vehicle.
- Dixon testified Simms turned suddenly into his path and that his car struck the center of the right side of Simms’s four-door car.
- Simms testified she signaled and began a right turn from the curb lane and was struck at the rear of the right side of her car.
- The precise point of impact on Simms’s car was a central disputed fact.
- Simms offered six post-collision photographs of her car to show the location of damage.
- Simms was prepared to testify, based on personal knowledge, that the photographs accurately depicted her car’s condition after the collision.
- The trial court excluded the photographs because the photographer could not be located and the court required the photographer to testify and be subject to cross-examination.
- The jury returned a defense verdict, and judgment was entered for Dixon and the insurer.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may exclude post-accident photographs offered to show a disputed point of impact solely because the photographer is unavailable, despite testimony from a witness with personal knowledge that the photographs accurately depict the condition shown.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held it was reversible error to exclude the photographs on the ground that the photographer did not testify.
- The court concluded Simms’s personal-knowledge testimony could provide an adequate foundation absent a finding that the photographs were inaccurate.

## Legal Principles

- Admission of photographs is generally committed to the trial judge’s discretion, conditioned on relevance and accuracy.
- Photographs may be authenticated through “pictorial testimony”: a competent witness with personal knowledge may testify that the photographs fairly and accurately represent what they purport to show at the relevant time.
- The photographer’s testimony and technical details of how the photographs were taken are not prerequisites to authentication when a personal-knowledge witness can attest to accuracy.
- A court abuses its discretion by excluding photographs without first finding that the proffered foundation fails to show the photographs are an accurate representation, particularly when the photographs bear on a materially disputed fact.

## Conclusion

Because the photographs were offered to prove a key disputed fact and could be authenticated through Simms’s personal-knowledge testimony, the trial court’s categorical requirement that the photographer testify imposed an incorrect legal standard; the resulting exclusion was reversible error requiring a new trial.


Simms v. Dixon, 291 A.2d 184 (D.C. 1972)