Defendant/Appellant, Fisher and her two daughters were charged with theftfrom a store they were hired to clean.The owner of the store set up a camera before appellantsarrived.In the owner's testimony regarding the video cameras, he stated that he set up the videocamera, turned it on, and confirmed that it was functioning correctly before leaving the store.Sheriff, Dick Wakefield testified that he witnessed the appellants daughter removing groceries inpaper sacks from the back door and arrested them. The appellant testified that she had a deal withthe owner and did not intend to steal but to return with a check to pay the balance. Fisher sought to exclude the tapes from being admitted into evidence because no witness had personallyobserved the theft. The appellant argued the court erred in admitting the video tape recordingsince no witnesses testified that the photographic evidence was a fair and accurate representationof the subject matter. (Photographic evidence may be admissible as substantive evidence withouta witness attesting to its accuracy as long as its authenticity is proven.) The trial court held thatthe video tape recording was admissible. This rule fits under the "silent witness" theory becausethe photographic evidence spoke for itself independent of a witness testimony to confirm thecontent