 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Drake6/6/2005
as redundant or cumulative. The state quotes the trial court's statement that the evidence had "great potential to mislead the jury."
Our review of the record reveals that after Mr. Jones's detailed testimony, the defense moved to allow the witness to play a video animation relative to how the collision occurred and offered to lay a foundation before introducing the video. The state interjected, "I just think it's redundant. I think that he's explained his conclusions." The defense responded that the material was not redundant and solicited the trial court to "indulge" the defense even if the material was somewhat redundant.
The trial court excused the jury, and the defense argued that the video would only take about five minutes to play and that it would assist the jury. Pointing out that the law conditions admissibility on the evidence being a fair and accurate depiction of the event that it portrays, the state argued that "all this expert has been able to tell us is . . . the point of impact," that "this animation goes far beyond that," and that "there is nothing to lay the foundation for what happened before that point of impact." The defense responded in general terms that once the video was played, Mr. Jones would provide additional testimony to explain the animation. The state raised the additional concern of the effect of the video in terms of danger that the jurors might accept it as an actual event.
Pursuant to the defense request for an opportunity to establish the admissibility of the video, the court allowed the defense to question Mr. Jones outside the presence of the jury. Mr. Jones testified that he had been trained and instructed others in the use of "video animation software," which allows the user to input information, such as speed, road surface, and distances traveled to generate images. Regarding accuracy, he said that he used the information that he derived from his calculations and the measurements taken at the accident scene.
The state's examination of Mr. Jones was more revealing. When asked if anything appeared on the animation about which he had not already testified, Mr. Jones responded affirmatively that the animation included the "pre-impact paths of travel" going back approximately 250 feet for each vehicle. When asked the source of the information used, Mr. Jones responded in general terms that "the information is calculated, based upon the pre-impact movement through physics." The state pressed, "So you created this - all you really know is the point of impact and the speed at impact; is that right?" Mr. Jones replied, "We know the point of impact, the speed of impact that is calculated. Yes. sir." Thereafter the trial court sustained the state's objection to admitting the evidence, ruling that "it ha a great potential to mislead the jury."
We note that when Mr. Jones resumed testifying before the jury, the state's cross- examination further clarified his opinions. Mr. Jones agreed with the state that at the time of impact the defendant's truck was further over in the wrong lane of travel than was the van. He also agreed that from the evidence at the scene, the defendant was not obeying all posted traffic laws. Finally, Mr. Jones conceded that he did not know what precipitated the vehicles colliding in the center of the road.
The leading case on computer generated evidence is Farner. In that case, the court distinguished a computer "animation" from a computer "simulation."
If the purpose of the computer evidence is to illustrate and explain a witness's testimony, courts usually refer to the evidence as an animation. . . . In contrast, a simulation is based on scientific or physical principles
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|