Opinion ID: 2440950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Use of Time Line

Text: For his next point for reversal, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellee to use a time line, which listed specific times of events pertaining to the nursing care of decedent, during direct examination of its witnesses. Appellant contends that because the chart had been premarked by Appellee's counsel with the various times involved, the time line improperly shaped the witnesses' testimony and violated the trial court's invocation of A.R.E. Rule 615. Appellee argued that the time line was merely used as a demonstrative tool to fill in the relevant times and events as each of the witnesses testified. The trial court allowed the use of the chart provided that nothing more was filled in and that no indications were made to it by Appellee's counsel until after the witnesses had given their testimony. The time line was not introduced into evidence for the jury's consideration; rather, it was used strictly for demonstrative purposes only. The admissibility and use of demonstrative evidence is a matter falling within the wide discretion of the trial court. Mills v. State, 322 Ark. 647, 910 S.W.2d 682 (1995). Appellant offers no convincing authority or argument in support of his contention and thus, he has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the use of such a demonstrative aid. We will not consider assignments of error that are unsupported by convincing legal authority or argument. Schmidt v. Pearson, Evans, & Chadwick, 326 Ark. 499, 931 S.W.2d 774 (1996).