was given for the term “intercepting device.” The trial justice “noted” these objections but refused to issue any curative or additional instruction. In a pretrial de ncorporate the statutory definitions of the terms “intercept” (meaning to “acquire aurally the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device”) and “intercepting device,” the trial justice did not commit reversible error in this case. For the reasons discussed above, the video camera was an “intercepting device” as a matter of law and its use (as revealed in the playback of the videotape to the jury) indisputably “acquire[d] aurally” the surrounding sounds and communications captured on the videotape. See Pascale v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 898 F.Supp. 276, 279 (D.N.J.1995) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the trial justice read §
holding when reasonable minds cannot differ the question of comparative negligence is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment holding question of citys exercise of due care in enforcement of ordinance was question of fact and inappropriate for summary judgment holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts holding that the question of whether the defendants recording device was an intercepting device was a question of law appropriate for summary judgment