Opinion ID: 2071483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Demonstrative Slides

Text: On the first day of his trial testimony, Levinson arrived in court with a series of color slides he intended to use to illustrate his testimony. After Balan was given an opportunity to review the slides, he objected on two grounds  surprise and the fact that the slides depicted some laparoscopic procedures that were very different from the one performed on Horner. The trial court overruled Balan's objections after determining that the slides would be helpful to the jury. On appeal, Balan argues that the slides were irrelevant, misleading and highly prejudicial. The decision whether to allow an expert to use a demonstrative aid, such as color slides, is within the trial court's discretion. [5] We find that the trial court appropriately addressed both of Balan's objections and acted within its discretion in allowing the slides to be used. The trial court responded to Balan's claim of surprise by giving his counsel an opportunity to review the slides during a lunch break. Balan has not advanced any credible argument that more preparatory time was necessary to cure any prejudice he may have suffered. Balan's more substantial argument is based on the differences between what the slides portray and what actually happened. For example, some of the slides show the steering wheel device and internal views of organs that were not in any way involved in Homer's procedure. Balan contends that these slides were misleading and prejudicial. Although we understand Balan's concern about the possibility of jury confusion, we are satisfied that the trial court's limiting instruction adequately eliminated that danger. The trial court ruled: The next witness is going to be Dr. Levinson. As part of his testimony, he's going to use some slides that the Court has seen and has ruled upon. I've admitted that evidence, but you should understand that that presentation that's on those slides is not the precise operation that was done here, and it's different in some significant respects. But it seems to me that permitting the jury to view that will enable you to understand better the general nature of the operation. All medical people have to deal with these medical issues and sometimes it's difficult. Both sides  I'm going to give both sides leeway to show you some illustrative things. Please understand it's not an exact duplication of the operation here. By alerting the jury to the significant differences between some of the slides and the actual procedure, the trial court effectively eliminated the danger of prejudice or confusion. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.