## Facts

- Michael Serge, a former police lieutenant, fatally shot his wife, Jennifer Serge, three times in their home on January 15, 2001.
- The prosecution contended the shooting was intentional and that Serge staged the scene to appear as self-defense, including moving the body and placing it near a knife.
- Serge claimed self-defense (wife attacked with a knife) and alternatively argued extreme intoxication negated specific intent.
- Before trial, the prosecution sought to use a computer-generated animation (CGA) to illustrate its reconstruction of the shooting based on forensic and physical evidence.
- The trial court admitted the CGA only if it was authenticated as a fair and accurate depiction of expert reconstructive testimony, stripped of inflammatory features, and disclosed to the defense before trial.
- At trial, prosecution experts testified the CGA accurately represented their opinions on bullet trajectories, positions, and shot sequence.
- The court repeatedly instructed the jury that the CGA was demonstrative only—a visual aid to testimony, not independent proof of what happened.
- The jury convicted Serge of first-degree murder, and he received a mandatory life sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether a computer-generated animation illustrating the prosecution’s reconstruction is admissible as demonstrative evidence when supported by expert testimony and limiting instructions.
2. Whether the CGA was properly authenticated as a fair and accurate depiction of expert opinions and underlying data.
3. Whether the CGA’s probative value was substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the CGA as demonstrative evidence.
- Authentication was sufficient because experts testified the CGA fairly and accurately depicted their reconstructive opinions grounded in the evidence.
- The CGA was relevant to help the jury understand complex forensic testimony about trajectories, positioning, and sequence of events.
- Any risk of undue influence was mitigated by pretrial disclosure, restrictions against inflammatory features, and repeated limiting instructions.
- The CGA’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under evidentiary balancing.

## Legal Principles

- Computer-generated animations used to illustrate testimony are evaluated under standard rules governing demonstrative evidence, not as a separate evidentiary category.
- Demonstrative evidence is admissible if it is relevant to assist the factfinder in understanding material testimony or facts.
- A CGA must be authenticated by evidence sufficient to show it is what the proponent claims—here, a fair and accurate depiction of expert opinions and supporting data.
- Even relevant demonstrative evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.
- Limiting instructions and controls on presentation may reduce the risk that jurors treat a demonstrative animation as substantive proof.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of a prosecution computer-generated animation as a demonstrative aid where experts authenticated it as accurately reflecting their reconstruction, the animation assisted the jury in understanding technical evidence, and safeguards (disclosure, non-inflammatory presentation, and limiting instructions) prevented unfair prejudice.


Commonwealth v. Serge, 837 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003)