finding that the probative value of a CGE *81 was not outweighed by any Rule 403 dangers since “[t]hese [computer-generated] tapes cleared up the confusion and made the expert’s testimony easier to understand”
How later courts described this case
- finding that the probative value of a CGE *81 was not outweighed by any Rule 403 dangers since “[t]hese [computer-generated] tapes cleared up the confusion and made the expert’s testimony easier to understand”
- finding that the probative value of a CGE was not outweighed by any Rule 403 dangers since “[t]hese [computer-generated] tapes cleared up the confusion and made the expert’s testimony easier to understand”
- requiring that jury be given specific cautionary instruction at time video or computer-based reenactment exhibits are presented
- "We believe that the South Carolina guidelines represent a model for Oklahoma trial courts."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUMPKIN, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:
Specially Concur:
T1 I compliment my colleague on his scholarly analysis of a complex issue. The analysis correctly applies the Oklahoma Evidence Code in a legally sustainable manner. The use of computers in the development of evidence, demonstrative or otherwise, must be approached with trepidation due to the complexity of validating the underlying methodology leading to the result being offered as evidence. However, regardless of our preferences for or against this type of evidence, the Oklahoma Evidence Code, supported by our adoption of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 1 , together with Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 2 , allows its admissibility if it meets the guidelines established. It is, and will continue to be, the awesome responsibility of Oklahoma trial judges to ensure the validity and relevance of the proffered evidence.
I 2 In the past, demonstrative evidence has often consisted of charts and diagrams prepared by hand and utilized by witnesses during the course of trial to explain the testimony given. Eye witnesses and investigators may mark positions of parties or items on these exhibits to allow jurors to gain perspective on where persons or objects were located at the seene depicted. As a result of that testimony and marking, the exhibit is often admitted into evidence and allowed to be taken to the jury room for consideration with other evidence in the jury's deliberations. See Brown v. State, 989 P.2d 913, 934-935 (Okl.Cr.1998) (diagrams of victim's injuries); Wilson v. State, 983 P.2d 448, 468 (Okl.Cr. 1998) (diagram of crime scene). It would seem that consistency demands the same treatment of the video and computer generated reenactments addressed in this case. This Court clarified its analysis of determining what exhibits should be taken to the jury room in Duvall v. State, 780 P.2d 1178, 1180 (Ok1.Cr.1989). The reenactments are not testimony subject to the provisions of 22 O.S.1991, § 894. Therefore, if admitted into evidence the exhibits should be taken to the jury room for consideration with the other evidence presented.
T3 I also believe it is incumbent upon the trial judge to ensure the seope of expert testimony is properly limited. See White v. State, 973 P.2d 306, 314 (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring) It is even more imperative in cases which present expert testimony plus video/computer generated reenactments that the jury be instructed at the time the evidence is presented, in addition to the final written instructions, as to the limited purpose of the evidence and the expert testimony. Courts must ensure the jurors are impressed with the import of their duty as the sole adjudicators of the facts of the case which must then be applied to the law upon which they are instructed. Experts and technology do not decide the results in cases, jurors do. To assist trial judges in the challenges created by our evolving technology, I continue to urge the Oklahoma Legislature to adopt the provisions of Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to provide judges with the resources needed to address this evolving technology. See Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319, 343 (Okl.Cr.1995) (Lump-kin, J., concur in result). Our district court judges continue to perform their duties in an outstanding manner with limited resources and support staff. It is incumbent upon the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of this State to work to ensure funding and statutory empowerment is provided to them to address the challenges of the 21st Century.
. 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)
. 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)