## Facts

- Judy Giovannoni was jogging along Highway 67 when a vehicle pulled over and a man (identified as Aubrey W. Dahl) ran toward her, speaking unintelligibly.
- The incident led to allegations that Jeremy C. Denton and Dahl attempted to abduct her; trial testimony also described Denton’s involvement, including a gun.
- Giovannoni escaped and flagged down a passing driver, then called 911.
- The State charged the defendants (tried jointly) with attempted armed robbery and, after the preliminary hearing, also charged attempted kidnapping and attempted false imprisonment with weapon enhancers.
- At trial, the State introduced a computer-generated animation of the incident as demonstrative evidence.
- The animation was created and presented by a police officer who had no personal knowledge of the events and was not offered as an expert.
- The animation depicted a composite version of what the State’s witnesses said occurred and was used to illustrate the sequence of events.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by admitting a computer-generated animation created and presented by a nonexpert officer with no firsthand knowledge, where it portrayed a composite of witness accounts.
2. Whether the State proved any evidentiary error in admitting the animation was harmless.
3. Whether charging attempted kidnapping in addition to attempted robbery was proper, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting the computer-generated animation.
- The court held the State failed to meet its burden to show the error was harmless.
- The court reversed the judgments of conviction and the orders denying postconviction relief and remanded for further proceedings.
- Because reversal was required on the evidentiary ground, the court did not fully resolve the remaining challenges.

## Legal Principles

- Computer-generated animations offered to illustrate events are demonstrative evidence and require an adequate foundation.
- A proper foundation generally requires testimony from a witness with personal knowledge or appropriate expertise to establish that the exhibit fairly and accurately reflects the evidence it purports to depict.
- When an animation presents a composite reconstruction of disputed events, courts must closely evaluate the risk that its realism and apparent authority will mislead the jury or cause unfair prejudice.
- Erroneous admission of demonstrative evidence warrants reversal unless the State proves the error was harmless.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because the State used a composite computer animation to depict central disputed events without a competent foundational witness, and the State did not carry its burden to show the erroneous admission did not affect the verdict.


State v. Denton, 768 N.W.2d 250 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009)