Guys, re the doll / mannequin...
The argument about the use of a doll as a demonstrative being argued as good cause for an appeal.
I’ve been doing some research and here’s a snippet from an appellant courts judgement about the use of a mannequin as a demonstrative tool for the jury. I feel this illustrates my point that this is not the case.
“...Exhibit No. 4 ( a lifelike mannequin showing the stab wounds on the victim) admittedly was an accurate portrayal of the number and location of the stab wounds.
If the showing of their location and number tends to be inflammatory it is because any accurate portrayal, whether presented by oral testimony, or by a photograph, or as in this case by use of a paper maché mannequin, would be inflammatory.
Notwithstanding its possible inflammatory nature, the exhibit met every test of probativeness. The exhibit visually demonstrated the nature and location of various wounds inflicted. State v. Jones, 515 S.W.2d 504, 506 (Mo.1974); State v. Wallace, 504 S.W.2d 67, 72 (Mo.1973); State v. Whiteaker, 499 S.W.2d 412, 418 (Mo.1973). It also enabled the jury to better understand the facts elicited from the witnesses, State v. Crow, 486 S.W.2d 248, 256 (Mo. 1972); State v. Perkins, 382 S.W.2d 701, 704 (Mo.1964), and it corroborated the testimony of the State's witnesses. State v. Wallace, supra at p. 72, and State v. Jackson, 499 S.W.2d 467 (Mo.1973).
In addition Exhibit 4 constituted demonstrative evidence which, if the jury determined that appellant perpetrated the homicide, would aid the jury in determining the intent with which the homicide was committed, and for that reason the jury was in a better position to determine whether appellant should be found guilty of capital murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter, all of which were the subject of an instruction to the jury.
The cases cited are listed within the quote for reference
Hope this is useful...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
