CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...
Relevance
......
Demonstrative Evidence
.........
Experiments & Reenactments
............Found. for Experiment-Reenact.
12 Cards On This Topic:
No foundational error while using substitute hamper in crime scene re-creation where original hamper not recovered, DA did not invite physical experiment and ample evidence for jury to find substitute resembled original.
No abuse of discretion in allowing W to demonstrate what s/he observed during shooting, with W posing as shooter and DA posing as V, where court could reasonably conclude it would be helpful to the jury in understanding Ws' testimony.
Adequate foundation laid for experimental, photographic approximation of murder location and conditions under which D took photos of V.
Relevancy of duplicated act requires similarity of conditions.
Dissimilarities are not pertinent unless they mislead.
Similarity required if results are basis of expert opinion.
Duplication of conditions must not be based upon speculation.
Testimony of experiment not restricted to person who performed it.
Where DA reconstructed bed to show W could see through it, admission of evid. depended on establishing requisite foundational, preliminary facts.
Experimental gunshot tapes properly admitted as relevant; conditions substantially similar to actual event; expert shown qualified; no undue time, confusion, or misleading jury.
Demonstrations of experiments used to merely illustrate principles in forming expert opinion do not require strict adherence to facts.
When experiment goes beyond "demonstration of physical principle," conditions must be sufficiently close to those in accident to avoid undue prejudice.