Thompson v. Columbian nat. Life Ins. Co., 95 A. 229, 114 Me. 1 (Me. 1915)
Whether demonstrative evidence of this character should be admitted depends, within well-defined limits, upon the discretion of the presiding justice. And, unless the discretion is abused, exceptions do not lie. Ordinarily a preliminary question is whether the thing offered is in substantially the same condition it was at the time in question. The determination of this fact is for the justice, and to his finding exceptions do not lie. This is so well settled that the citation of authorities is unnecessary.
Related Articles
Peloquin v. Robert Northridge Furniture Co., 178 N.E.2d 495, 343 Mass. 317 (1961)
“A medical witness of the plaintiff in testifying to the plaintiff's injuries was permitted to use a 'Chart of Osteology' as a chalk and exhibited on the blackboard after a conference at the bench. Everson v. Casualty Co. of America, 208 Mass. 214, ...
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 10-P-26 (MACA)
“Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), the evidence of the scar was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury in ...
Dederichs v. Salt Lake City R. Co., 14 Utah 137, 141, 46 P. 656, 657, 35 L.R.A. 802, 807
The court, by Miner, J., speaking of photographs excluded by the court below, said: "These photographs exhibited the surface condition of the streets, buildings, trees, cars, railroad track, poles, and distances, and would, no doubt, carry to the ...
Coleman Bros., Inc. v. Union St. Ry. Co., 198 N.E. 917, 292 Mass. 557 (1935)
A cut or picture of the compressor was admitted as a chalk to give idea of what it looked like.
Curtis v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 80 A. 127, 32 R.I. 542 (R.I. 1911)
The admission of photographs of places and things, for the purpose of aiding the jury in applying the facts proved to the particular case, is a matter of almost everyday occurrence in the courts.