Opinion ID: 1951916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Admission of Blood-Stained Overalls and Use of Mannequin with Knitting Needle Through Its Head

Text: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial when the court admitted Donaghy's blood-stained overalls into evidence, and when it permitted the medical examiner to demonstrate the path of the bullet by inserting a knitting needle through the head of a mannequin. Defendant asserts that the evidence not only was highly inflammatory but cumulative as well, in view of the admission of numerous autopsy and crime-scene photographs and a videotape of the crime scene. The court overruled defendant's objection and allowed the jury to view the overalls, and rejected defendant's renewed objection to the admission of the overalls into evidence. Defendant also made timely objection to the use of the mannequin. Initially, the State had proposed using a life-sized mannequin dressed in the victim's overalls and wearing a wig to aid the medical examiner in his description of the fatal wound, but the court disallowed it: [D]ressing up the mannequin and putting it in the courtroom is kind of like simulating this is Mr. Donaghy and here he is dead on the floor in front of you and that is inflammatory. The court allowed the use of the mannequin but without the wig or overalls. The court also refused to admit the mannequin into evidence and precluded the prosecutor from using it during summation. Moreover, the mannequin was clothed in a hospital gown and was before the jury for only two to three minutes. The court stated for the record that none of the jurors exhibited any signs of emotional distress during the presentation. Considerable latitude is afforded a trial court in determining whether to admit evidence, and that determination will be reversed only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion. See State v. McDougald, 120 N.J. 523, 577-78, 577 A. 2d 419 (1990); see also Koedatich I, supra, 112 N.J. at 313, 548 A. 2d 939 (explaining evidentiary ruling will be disturbed if there has been clear error in judgment); State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 106, 449 A. 2d 1280 (1982)(noting trial court's ruling will stand unless its finding was so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted). The State may also use demonstrative aids even if those aids are somewhat cumulative to other evidence it has previously presented. See State v. Grunow, 199 N.J.Super. 241, 253, 488 A. 2d 1098 (App.Div. 1985), aff'd, 102 N.J. 133, 506 A. 2d 708 (1986). Whether evidence is admissible turns on its relevance and whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. N.J.R.E. 403; Carter, supra, 91 N.J. at 106, 449 A. 2d 1280. Here, both the overalls and the mannequin were relevant to the State's case and carried significant probative value. The State's theory of the case was that defendant shot Donaghy and only then took money from him. That theory was buttressed by the position in which Donaghy was found, with only one of the overalls' pockets exposed and money missing from only that pocket, although other pockets contained additional money. The overalls assisted the jury by enabling them to see the positioning of the various pockets on the overalls. The knitting needle indicating the trajectory of the bullet also supported the State's theory that Donaghy was sitting down when he was shot. That fact lent support to the State's theory of intentional rather than accidental shooting. Although defendant asserts that no testimony supported the contention that Donaghy was seated, the medical examiner's testimony indicating that the bullet followed a downward trajectory itself supported that conclusion. We note that other courts have upheld the admission of similar evidence. See, e.g., People v. Medina, 11 Cal. 4th 694, 47 Cal.Rptr. 2d 165, 906 P. 2d 2, 36 (1995)(holding use of mannequin and wooden probe to show trajectory relevant to show intent in capital prosecution), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 151, 136 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1996); People v. Cummings, 4 Cal. 4th 1233, 18 Cal.Rptr. 2d 796, 850 P. 2d 1, 38 (1993)(approving use of mannequins as illustrative evidence to assist the jury in understanding the testimony of witnesses or to clarify the circumstances of a crime), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1046, 114 S.Ct. 1576, 128 L. Ed. 2d 219 (1994); State v. Holmes, 609 S.W. 2d 132, 135-36 (Mo.1980)(finding no abuse of discretion to admit papier-mache mannequin with sixty-four holes indicating stab wounds); Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 372 S.E. 2d 759, 768 (1988)(holding no abuse of discretion where Styrofoam head with knitting needle inserted to demonstrate bullet's trajectory was admitted in capital prosecution), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 3261, 106 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1989). Undoubtedly, this evidence was potentially inflammatory and cumulative to the photos and videotape already presented to the jury. Nevertheless, their proffer was unlikely to have disturbed the jury more than the photos and video, which actually showed the corpse in a pool of blood. The court noted that the overalls are not gruesome in looking at them. The staining is there, it's clear to see, but it's not gruesome. It's against a dark blue background. Further, we note that the court exercised caution by prohibiting the mannequin from being dressed in the overalls and a wig, refusing to allow the prosecutor to use it during summation, and declining the State's effort to admit the mannequin into evidence. In the context of the entire record, we are not persuaded that the admission of the overalls into evidence or permitting the jury to observe the mannequin penetrated by the knitting needle constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion.