California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Riel, 22 Cal.4th 1153, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969 (Cal. 2000):
Defendant argues the court erred in allowing the prosecution to use a mannequin to illustrate the victim's stab wounds. However, he may not raise the issue on appeal because he did not object at trial. (People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 754, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2.) Defendant claims the mannequin inaccurately illustrated the wounds and might have confused the jury. If true, that might have provided a reason for defense counsel not to object. An objection might merely have resulted in the prosecution using a more accurate, less confusing mannequin. Defense counsel might reasonably have believed that a confused jury would be less likely to find their client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In any event, an objection would have lacked merit. The pathologist testified that the mannequin showed the "approximate" angles of the knife wounds. Using the mannequin in this fashion was permissible. (People v. Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 753-754, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.