[40–43] We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude an out-of-court experiment for an abuse of discretion. Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). An out-of-court experi- ment is generally admissible so long as the experiment was made under similar conditions to the event in which the experiment relates.
All these conditions would affect the degree of illumination. To be admissible, an experiment must be conducted under conditions which are similar to the event to be duplicated. Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984); Brown v. State, 657 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). The conditions need not be identical as dissimilarities affect the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence.
Results of an out-of-court experiment generally are admissible if the experiment was made under similar conditions to the duplicated event. Valdez v. State, 776 S.W.2d 162, 168 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The experiment need not be made under identical conditions to the event; minor dissimilarities go to the experiment's weight, not its admissibility.
However, when the "facts presented affirmatively show that the proposed experiment was conducted under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, the court abuses its discretion in excluding the evidence." Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). Appellant requested, out of the presence of the jury, to demonstrate how the stroller would look if filled with all the items on the inventory.
In doing so, we think that the similarities of the experiment to the events of the occurrence on trial were sufficient. In Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475 (Texas Crim.App. 1984), the court wrote: "To be admissible, an experiment need not be made under identical conditions of the event; dissimilarities go to the weight and not to the admissibility.
The trial court has discretion whether to admit or exclude experiments, and the measure of our review of such concerns whether he abused his discretion. Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984). In Esquivel v. State, 595 S.W.2d 516, 529 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), we stated that generally the results of out-of-court experiments are admissible in the discretion of the trial court if the experiment was made under similar conditions to the event to which the results of the experiment relate.
However, whether the trial court will be found to have abused its discretion in admitting or excluding such re-enactments must be determined on an ad hoc basis. Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984). In this instance, what was exhibited to the jury was not a motion picture or videotaped re-enactment of the offense, but, instead, were four still photographs with a person therein depicting locations that fit Slotnik's description of what he had seen after the third gunman, (alleged to be the appellant), came out of the store.
The trial court has discretion on whether demonstrations should be permitted. Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). And it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow the utilization of demonstrative aids that are not admitted into evidence, not seen again by the jury, and not made a part of the record.
To be admissible, an experiment need not be made under identical conditions of the event. Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475, 476 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). Any dissimilarities go to the weight and not to the admissibility of the experiment.
The trial court has discretion on whether demonstrations should be permitted. Ginther v. State, 672 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). While demonstrations must be conducted under similar conditions, "the conditions need not be identical as dissimilarities affect the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence."