State v. Denton
319 Wis. 2d 718, 2009 WI App 78, 768 N.W.2d 250 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A computer-generated animation offered as demonstrative evidence is inadmissible if its creator is a non-expert lay witness who lacks personal knowledge of the events depicted and the animation synthesizes the testimony of multiple witnesses into a single narrative without being authenticated by any witness as a fair and accurate representation of their testimony.
Facts:
- On August 21, 2005, Judy Giovannoni was jogging on the side of Highway 67.
- A car containing Aubrey W Dahl and Jeremy C. Denton pulled off the road ahead of her.
- Dahl exited the car and began running toward Giovannoni.
- Giovannoni turned and ran in the opposite direction, at which point Denton exited the car and yelled, '[G]et on the ground I have a f[uck]ing gun.'
- Giovannoni ran into the highway and was picked up by a passing vehicle driven by Dennis Hohisel.
- Hohisel and his passenger, Leah Biever, observed one of the men approach their vehicle with what appeared to be a handgun.
- Police later implemented a search of the area but were unable to find a gun.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Jeremy C. Denton and Aubrey W Dahl with one count of attempted armed robbery.
- Following a preliminary hearing, the State filed an amended information charging the defendants with attempted armed robbery, attempted kidnapping, and attempted false imprisonment.
- In a joint trial, a jury in the trial court found the defendants guilty on all counts.
- The defendants filed postconviction motions, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgments of conviction and the orders denying their postconviction motions to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court erroneously exercise its discretion by admitting a computer-generated animation created by a non-expert police officer, who lacked personal knowledge of the events, to illustrate a composite version of multiple witnesses' testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Neubauer, J.
Yes. The trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it admitted the computer-generated animation. The animation was not a proper demonstrative exhibit because it was not used to illustrate the testimony of a single witness with personal knowledge. Instead, it was created and presented by a police officer, testifying as a lay witness, who had no personal knowledge of the incident. The officer improperly synthesized unsworn, out-of-court statements from multiple witnesses into a single, conclusive narrative that purported to show 'what people did.' This lack of proper foundation and authentication meant the animation had little probative value. Its potential for unfair prejudice was high, as it presented the jury with a seemingly authoritative and cohesive version of events, thereby usurping the jury's role of sifting through and weighing the varying testimony of actual eyewitnesses. This error was not harmless because the powerful visual presentation likely contributed to the conviction.
Analysis:
This decision establishes critical limitations on the use of computer-generated animations as demonstrative evidence in Wisconsin courts. It clarifies that such technologically sophisticated exhibits are not exempt from fundamental evidentiary rules requiring personal knowledge and proper authentication. The ruling prevents the prosecution from using a non-expert, non-eyewitness to create a 'master narrative' that synthesizes disputed facts, which would improperly influence the jury and usurp its fact-finding function. Future use of such animations will require careful foundation-laying, likely through the testimony of the eyewitness whose perspective is being shown, or through a qualified expert who can explain the basis and methodology of a reconstruction.
