## Facts

- Aimee Michael was charged with multiple crimes arising from a multi-vehicle collision, including five counts of first-degree homicide by vehicle and serious injury by vehicle.
- Michael’s defense was that another vehicle “tapped” her car, triggering the chain of collisions.
- Michael retained an accident-reconstruction witness who formed opinions about how the collision occurred.
- To illustrate those opinions, the defense sought to use a computer-animation video depicting the witness’s reconstruction.
- The State filed a motion in limine to exclude the animation.
- The trial court excluded the video, ruling that Michael had not shown an adequate scientific or factual basis for the animation’s specific depictions of the accident.
- The trial court still allowed the reconstruction witness to testify and explain his analysis using other demonstrative tools, including photographs and model cars.
- The jury convicted Michael, and she appealed, arguing that excluding the animation was reversible error.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the defense’s computer-animation reconstruction for lack of a sufficient factual and scientific basis.
2. If exclusion was error, whether it required reversal where the defense still presented the reconstruction opinions through testimony and other demonstrative exhibits.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed Michael’s convictions.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding the animation because the defense did not lay an adequate factual or scientific basis for what the video portrayed.
- The court further concluded that, even if exclusion were mistaken, reversal was not warranted because the reconstruction testimony and theory were still presented to the jury through the witness’s testimony using photographs and model cars.

## Legal Principles

- The admission of demonstrative evidence, including computer-generated animations offered to illustrate a witness’s testimony, lies within the trial court’s discretion.
- A computer animation may be excluded when the proponent fails to show that the animation fairly represents the witness’s opinions as supported by facts in evidence and reliable methodology, rather than unproven assumptions.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings on demonstrative exhibits is for abuse of discretion; the ruling will be affirmed if it falls within the range of reasonable choices.
- Excluding a particular demonstrative aid is less likely to justify reversal when the substance of the opinion testimony is admitted and presented through other means.
- The jury, not the appellate court, decides the weight of competing evidence and resolves conflicts in testimony; the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.

## Conclusion

Michael v. State affirmed a trial court’s decision to bar a defense accident-reconstruction animation where the defense failed to establish enough factual and scientific support for what the video depicted, and the appellate court found no reversible harm because the defense reconstruction theory was still conveyed through the witness’s testimony using photographs and model cars.


Michael v. State, 782 S.E.2d 479 (2016)