Opinion ID: 2321234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of the Model

Text: The defendant contends that the trial justice's refusal to allow him to use a model of the granite marker on Ms. Beltram's property, against which she allegedly suffered her injuries during the incident underlying the instant prosecution, constituted prejudicial error. The defendant asserts that he wanted to use the model to illustrate the physical impossibility of Ms. Beltram's version of the events. When reviewing a trial justice's decision to admit or preclude certain evidence, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard, granting the trial justice wide latitude to determine both the relevance and the admissibility of evidence. Accetta v. Provencal, 962 A.2d 56, 60 (R.I.2009). The trial justice will not have abused his or her discretion as long as some grounds supporting his or her decision appear in the record. State v. Evans, 742 A.2d 715, 719 (R.I.1999). Defense counsel attempted to submit, as demonstrative evidence, a model of the granite marker upon which Ms. Beltram allegedly suffered her injuries. When presented with the model marker, the trial justice compared it to a photograph of the actual granite marker. After examining them, he remarked: Oh, my goodness. The disparity is so clearly obvious from the photograph and what you have put on the clerk's desk, it is certain to be different from what the actual marker looks like. I will not permit this. After hearing from both parties, the trial justice explained that the model was not at all an intelligible representation of how [the granite marker] appeared and, accordingly, refused to let the model be used as a demonstrative exhibit. Instead, the trial justice instructed the parties to mark up a photograph to demonstrate how the injuries were suffered. Pursuant to Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury   . The trial justice must exercise his or her discretion to exclude evidence sparingly, because only evidence that is marginally relevant and enormously prejudicial must be excluded. State v. Patel, 949 A.2d 401, 412-13 (R.I.2008). Nevertheless, [t]he ultimate determination of the effect of evidence lies in the discretion of the trial justice. Id. at 413. With respect to replicas and models specifically, this Court previously has held that [a]ny evidence which is admitted purely for illustrative purposes must not only be material and relevant but must also be shown `   to be substantially like the real thing and substantially similar in operation and function to the object or contrivance in issue.' State v. Souza, 110 R.I. 261, 270, 292 A.2d 214, 219 (1972) (quoting State v. Gray, 64 Wash.2d 979, 395 P.2d 490, 492 (1964)). Indeed, this Court has counseled trial courts to approach the admission of models, samples and things offered exclusively for illustrative purposes with wariness and circumspection   . Id. at 269, 292 A.2d at 219. The defendant conceded that the model of the marker was not of the same substance as the actual marker present on Ms. Beltram's property; the model was made of wood, whereas the actual marker was made of granite. It also appears, based on the transcript, that the prototype was a different shape because the actual granite marker appeared wider, thicker, and rougher than the model. Neither the model nor a photograph of the model has been included in the record before this Court; we have only the trial justice's comments about the wooden model. However, our review of the trial justice's decision with respect to admissibility of evidence is deferential. See Accetta, 962 A.2d at 60. The trial justice did not make a ruling with respect to the model marker after only a cursory assessment. Rather, it is clear from the record that he considered the physical appearance of the model, compared it to the photograph, and assessed its prejudicial nature. Because the trial justice examined the evidence and stated his reasons for prohibiting the model marker, which we accept as reasonable, we conclude that he did not err in precluding the model.