Opinion ID: 902784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Animated Recreation

Text: Swift also asserts the trial court abused its discretion in permitting Turner to present the demonstrative animation purporting to recreate the accident. In Arkansas, a demonstrative video depiction is admissible if it is “‘substantially similar’” to the accident and any variation in the conditions are “‘not . . . likely to confuse and mislead the jury.’” Carter v. Mo. Pac. R.R., 681 S.W.2d 314, 315-16 (Ark. 1984) (quoting Carr v. Suzuki Motor Co., 655 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Ark. 1983)); see also McMickle v. Griffin, 254 S.W.3d 729, 745 (Ark. 2007). Arkansas appellate courts review the trial court’s admission of demonstrative evidence for abuse of discretion. Id. at 743. Swift argues the trial court erred in admitting the evidence because Turner failed to lay a proper foundation for the proposition that the truck had a “Swift” logo on the air foil. We reject this argument. The trial court recognized the jury could have decided “the only way that [Turner] could have identified [the truck as a Swift tractor during the accident] is by seeing ‘Swift’ on the [air foil].” This inference comports with the evidence. Turner testified the truck came straight at him and ran him off the road. Based on this testimony, a reasonable jury could conclude Turner had no opportunity to view the side of the trailer, and if Turner saw a Swift logo it must have been on the front of the vehicle. Other evidence showed Swift trucks have a Swift logo on the air foil. Swift maintains the trial court’s admission of this exhibit indicated the trial court “adopt[ed] ipso facto [Turner]’s ‘theory’ that if Turner made statements about a ‘Swift truck,’ then it must have been because he saw markings on the front of the truck.” Swift’s suggestion misses the mark. By admitting Turner’s evidence, the trial -16- court did not make any judgment as to the credibility of Turner’s case. The trial court ultimately recognized Turner produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to consider and possibly accept Turner’s position. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this regard, and the Arkansas appellate courts would not have reversed.