State v. John C. Winters, 145 A. 413, 102 Vt. 36 (Vt. 1929)
In prosecution for murder, permitting sheriff, who went to scene of murder before anything was moved and took charge of bed, bedding, and other articles therein, and had since had them in custody, to arrange them in court room in substantially relative position they were in when witness first visited scene, held without error, such reproduction, in connection with witness' testimony concerning material facts of his own observation and knowledge being demonstrative evidence tending to show motive prompting commission of crime and way it was committed, and admission of such demonstrative evidence being within court's discretion and not reversible in absence of abuse. Later and during his direct examination, these different articles being so in evidence, the witness was permitted, subject to exception by respondent, to arrange before the jury, the bed, mattress, sheets, quilt, couch cover, and screen in substantially the same relative positions as they were when the witness first viewed the scene. In addition to the general objection and exception to such arrangement being permitted, two specific grounds were stated as follows: (1) "Because it is impossible here in the court room to exactly reproduce the conditions as they were; (2) and we further object to any part of a reproduction unless all of the contents of the rooms are specifically included in the reproduction." Such reproduction, in connection with the testimony of the witness concerning material facts of his own observation and knowledge, was demonstrative evidence tending to show the motive prompting the commission of the crime, and also the way it was committed. The admission of this demonstrative evidence was within the discretion of the trial court and, in the absence of abuse (of which none is here claimed), will not be revised in review.
Related Articles
State v. Brown, 515A.2d 1059, 147 Vt. 324 (Vt. 1986)
The admission of demonstrative evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and, in the absence of abuse, we will not overturn the trial court's decision. Viens v. Lanctot, 120 Vt. 443, 448, 144 A.2d 711, 715 (1958); State v. Winters, 102 Vt. ...
State v. Gates, 451 A.2d 1084, 141 Vt. 562 (Vt. 1982)
The boundaries of propriety in closing argument are well established in Vermont. "[C]ounsel should confine argument to the evidence of the case and inferences properly drawn from it, and must avoid appealing to the prejudice of the jury." State v. ...
State v. Findlay, 765 A.2d 483, 171 Vt. 594 (Vt. 2000)
The court, moreover, did not abuse its discretion in admitting the yearbook photograph. [171 Vt. 598] The admissibility of photographic evidence is largely a matter of discretion for the trial court. See State v. Colby, 139 Vt. 475, 478, 431 A.2d ...
State v. Blakeney, 408 A.2d 636, 137 Vt. 495 (Vt. 1979)
It is the settled law of this state that "counsel should confine argument to the evidence of the case and inferences properly drawn from it, and must avoid appealing to the prejudice of the jury." State v. Lapham, 135 Vt. 393, 406, 377 A.2d 249, 257 ...
State v. Mahlon J. Gravelle, 89 A.2d 111, 117 Vt. 238 (Vt. 1952)
Models, maps, plans and photographs belong, in the law of evidence, to the same class, and are admissible only when properly verified. That is to say, preliminary evidence is required to show that they are sufficiently accurate to be helpful to the ...