Opinion ID: 1035458
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Demonstrative

Text: Exhibits We historically have discussed the use of demonstrative exhibits in terms of admissibility. In Benzel v. Keller Indus.,4 we adopted “principles for determining the admissibility of demonstrative exhibits in civil cases” and held that “demonstrative exhibits are admissible if they supplement the witness’ 4 Benzel v. Keller Indus., 253 Neb. 20, 28, 567 N.W.2d 552, 558 (1997). Nebraska Advance Sheets 370 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS spoken description of the transpired event, clarify some issue in the case, and are more probative than prejudicial.” Conversely, we stated that “[d]emonstrative exhibits are inadmissible when they do not illustrate or make clearer some issue in the case; that is, where they are irrelevant, or where the exhibit’s character is such that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”5 Based upon these principles, we have discussed in other cases whether demonstrative exhibits are “admissible”6 and whether their “admission” is an abuse of discretion.7 [2] But the use of such terminology can be misleading. Demonstrative exhibits are broadly defined as aids “offered to illustrate or explain the testimony of witnesses, including experts, or to present a summary or chronology of complex or voluminous documents.”8 Our case law specifically defines demonstrative exhibits as those that “clarify some issue in the case.”9 As these definitions highlight, demonstrative exhibits are defined by the purpose for which they are offered at trial—to aid or assist the jury in understanding the evidence or issues in a case.10 “They are relevant . . . only because of the assistance they give to the trier in understanding other real, testimonial and documentary evidence.”11 Thus, even though demonstrative exhibits may be “admitted” into evidence during the course of the trial, they serve a purpose distinct from other exhibits admitted for substantive and not merely demonstrative 5 Id. 6 State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903, 925, 775 N.W.2d 47, 66 (2009). Accord State v. Gutierrez, 272 Neb. 995, 726 N.W.2d 542 (2007), abrogated on other grounds, State v. Thorpe, 280 Neb. 11, 783 N.W.2d 749 (2010). 7 American Central City v. Joint Antelope Valley Auth., supra note 3, 281 Neb. at 756, 807 N.W.2d at 182. Accord, State v. Daly, supra note 6; State v. Gutierrez, supra note 6. 8 2 McCormick on Evidence § 214 at 18 (Kenneth S. Broun et al. eds., 7th ed. 2013). 9 Benzel v. Keller Indus., supra note 4, 253 Neb. at 28, 567 N.W.2d at 558. 10 See 2 McCormick on Evidence, supra note 8. 11 Id., § 214 at 19. Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. PANGBORN 371 Cite as 286 Neb. 363 purposes. For this reason, some courts refer to demonstrative exhibits as “pedagogical aid[s]”12 or “pedagogical devices”13 so as to highlight this difference in purpose. [3] Due to the difference in purpose, an exhibit admitted for a demonstrative purpose—that is, to aid the jury—is not evidence in the same way that an exhibit admitted for a substantive purpose—that is, as proof of an underlying fact or occurrence—is evidence. Our case law does not state that demonstrative exhibits are not to be considered as substantive evidence. However, a majority of circuit courts have so held,14 and the major evidence treatises agree.15 We likewise agree with this proposition and now hold that exhibits admitted only for demonstrative purposes do not constitute substantive evidence.