Opinion ID: 1838187
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Charts.

Text: By stipulation, it had been agreed that the Michigan records and the California records of defendant's mental condition would be admitted into evidence. The jury read these statements at the beginning of the sanity phase of defendant's trial after opening statements had been made. Defendant asserts error because he was not permitted to use a series of 10 charts in his opening statement. The details of the first six charts were taken from the Michigan and California reports. The other four charts contained items which were expected from the testimony of Dr. Lorenz. Defendant argues that he should have been permitted to use these charts [i]n order to lead a lay jury through a maze of psychiatric terms, . . . The defendant sought the use of charts showing the various classifications of mental disorders. When the trial court was asked to permit the use of these charts in his opening statement the prosecutor objected and argued it was unfair to take the material contained in the charts out of the context in which they appeared. The trial court recognized that photos and charts may be proper exhibits during a trial, but refused to permit the use of the charts in opening statements. The trial court advised counsel he saw no problem in using the charts during closing arguments. In Hernke v. Northern Ins. Co. (1963), 20 Wis. 2d 352, 122 N. W. 2d 395, this court reviewed the trial court's refusal to permit the use of charts of body muscles and a model skeleton and, while this court was of the opinion that it would have been preferable for the trial court to have permitted the use of the exhibits, the refusal to do so was not prejudicial. It was recognized as follows: Almost all courts have recognized that whether demonstrative evidence is to be received rests largely in the discretion of the trial judge. Walker v. Baker (1961), 13 Wis. (2d) 637, 651, 109 N. W. (2d) 499; Gordon, Demonstrative Evidence, 32 Wisconsin Bar Bulletin (February, 1959), p. 11. It has been observed that many people learn and understand better with their eyes than they do with their ears. It would seem that the alignment of bones and muscles is sufficiently obscure to the average juror so as to make a visual demonstration helpful. Smith v. Ohio Oil Co. (1956), 10 Ill. App. (2d) 67, 134 N. E. (2d) 526. Hernke, supra, page 359. The charts in this case were not comparable to the muscle charts and skeleton in Hernke. These charts were summarizations of the conclusions of various psychiatrists. Thus, defendant sought in part to emphasize conclusions reached in mental examinations conducted prior to trial. The refusal to permit the use of these charts in counsel's opening statement was not an abuse of discretion by the trial court.