Opinion ID: 1736768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Photographs as demonstrative evidence

Text: Defendant's alternative theory is that these photographs were proper demonstrative evidence, akin to maps and models, that he was entitled to use as a visual aid to assist the jury in understanding Dr. Souviron's theory. In Dr. Souviron's own words, the illustrative reason for showing the jury these photographs was as follows: This is an unusual situation in that the defense in this case has to be able to have a Jury understand what a bite mark looks like in the first place in order to be able to intelligently evaluate what isn't a bite mark, what bite marks look like, the class characteristics, would help them and I will be asking them toand I did it verbally and I'd like to it visually to show the Jury what patterns are left by teeth so you can use that to actually look at the pattern injury based on the individual characteristics and describe what the person looks like and that's a hard concept for a lay person to understand that you can describe the person by a bite and I want to be able to show the Jury that I can describe what this.... The state counters that the trial judge viewed the photographs of other bite marks and determined under La. C.E. art. 401 that these photographs were not relevant evidence. [22] In determining the admissibility of demonstrative evidence over such an objection, the proper standard is whether the proffered evidence is relevant to any material issue in dispute and, if so, whether its probative value exceeds its probable prejudicial effect. State v. Prestridge 399 So.2d 564, 573 (La.1981)(citing State v. Hawthorne, 345 So.2d 1170 (La. 1977)); see La. C.E. Art. 403 (providing that [a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury...). Agreeing with the state and voicing his skepticism regarding the use of these photographs, the trial judge stated that what [Dr. Souviron] will testify to apparently is the bite mark on some other individual made by some other teeth not the molding of the Defendant that we have here. The judge also voiced concerns about the potentially misleading effect these photographs could have on the jury given the inference, discussed above, that all bite marks have got to be like this. Now, the picture of Haley Oliveaux doesn't look like that so that's not a bite mark. [23] Given this potential for confusion coupled with the arguable lack of relevance, we again find the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding these pictures as demonstrative evidence. Our conclusion is bolstered by considering the type of demonstration that the defense intended to use with these photographs; the defense intended to demonstrate that the wounds on the victim were not bite marks by comparing them to these photographs of other bite marks. [24] When such demonstrations are brought into the courtroom on film, the fact of filming does not alter the basic principles applicable to experiments and demonstrations. McCormick, supra at § 214. Such demonstrations can be divided into two types: replications of an original event, on the one hand; and true illustrations, on the other. Id. While visual aids falling within the latter category are routinely allowed to be used at trial, the photographs at issue in this case fall within the former category of a replication of an original (actual) eventactual bite marks on a victim's bodyand thus are admissible only if a similarity requirement is satisfied. That is, the replication must be conducted under substantially similar circumstances. Id. That the trial judge so viewed these photographs is evidenced by the following query he posed at trial: How would you distinguish this from say if we were dealing with an automobile accident case and there was a bumper involved and the car that was involved that had all kinds of damage on it are you saying that you could put another bumper in there that's just like it that was not involved in the wreck and you view it as evidence? The defense's response was that the only way we can show what bite marks look like if we don't have bite marks in this case are by showing the bite marks of other individuals. [25] And that's demonstrative evidence. Disagreeing, the trial judge responded that you can't show something else if it's not made by the same teeth and by the same individual. It's something that's not been offered into evidence I just do not see how you do it. The trial judge thus, albeit implicitly, imposed the similarity requirement and found these photographs, depicting unknown victims who were bitten by unknown individuals, did not depict bite marks made under substantially similar circumstances. We find no error in the trial court's reasoning. Finally, we note that the testimony of Dr. Souviron and Dr. Kirschner clearly contradicted and rebutted that of Dr. Reisner, the state's expert. Defendant was not deprived of putting on a defense relative to the bite mark issue. The jury was certainly presented with conflicting opinions and was free to believe either. Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in precluding the defense from using these photographs as evidence.