Court Opinion

ID: 9680529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:33:01.248675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.039006
License: Public Domain

FENDER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I heartily endorse the fears expressed in the majority opinion concerning the inherent dangers attendant to videotape re-enactments. I cannot, however, let such concern — deep though it may be-stampede me into joining a didactic ban on the use of modern technology. I would suggest that such more properly falls to the legislative process — not the judicial function.
Ingrained in the judicial process is the continuing battle between probative value and prejudicial effect. The vast majority of these confrontations require a case by case analysis. I would support such an approach in the field of videotape re-enactment.
In the instant cause a review of the videotape revealed nothing of value to either the State or the defense. It is doubtful that any one of the jurors was swayed in the slightest bit one way or the other. Therefore, while not encouraging further such demonstrative productions, I would hold this attempted re-enactment harmless and affirm the conviction.
I dissent.
SPURLOCK, J., concurs.