Opinion ID: 1058965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Demonstrative Evidence โ Model of the Caprice Trunk and Video

Text: At trial the Commonwealth offered demonstrative evidence utilizing a model of the trunk of the Caprice and a video demonstrating how a shooting could take place from the trunk. The use of demonstrative evidence to illustrate testimony is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 254, 372 S.E.2d 759, 768 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925, 109 S.Ct. 3261, 106 L.Ed.2d 607 (1989). Muhammad claims in assignments of error 55, 56, 57, and 58 that the trial court erred in admitting this evidence because the reconstruction was not complete, it was out of context, and did not include the materials in the trunk from the time of Mr. Muhammad's arrest or any specific incident. Muhammad further argues that it was error to allow the jury to inspect the Caprice after viewing the demonstrative replica and the video. He further complains about the use of police officer stand-ins in the video and that the evidence presented invited the jury to speculate about what occurred in the shootings, particularly the shooting of Dean Meyers. The evidence presented was not expert reconstructive opinion testimony. Rather it was demonstrative evidence, illustrative in nature of other evidence presented. Muhammad claims that the demonstration was not supportive of the Commonwealth's theory of the case nor based upon other evidence presented. We disagree with Muhammad. Scientific evidence of the presence of nitroglycerine and gunshot residue in the trunk of the Caprice proved that gunshots were fired from the trunk. A witness testified that he saw a flash come from the car when Charlot was murdered. Muhammad and Malvo were seen in the Caprice immediately before the murder of Dean Meyers. Immediately after the murder of Dean Meyers, Muhammad was interviewed in the parking lot across the street and in the presence of the Caprice. Malvo was not seen at the parking lot, leaving the reasonable inference that Malvo was in the trunk. Demonstrative evidence concerning how a person could get from the passenger compartment to the trunk from the inside and how a person could shoot a rifle from within the trunk was relevant and helpful to the jury. The trial court carefully considered the relevance of the demonstrative evidence and the foundation for its admissibility. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting this demonstrative evidence followed by an actual inspection of the trunk of the Caprice.