He does not, however, argue that the evidence was inaccurate or misleading to the jury. See Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (“Since the conditions were reasonably or substantially similar and the use of the mannequin was not calculated to unfairly prejudice the appellant, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the demonstration.”)
This Court notes that Mitchell does not argue and the record does not indicate that the mannequin heads were dissimilar to the heads of the victims. See Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) Whether to allow the prosecutor to use mannequins to aid the jury in understanding the trajectory of a bullet through a victim is within the sound discretion of the circuit court and a conviction " will not be reversed on appeal unless [that discretion] has been clearly and grossly abused."
“See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).”Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278–79 (Ala.Crim.App.1979).
"See also Eddy v. State, 352 So. 2d 1161 (Ala. Cr. App. 1977)." Ivey v. State, 369 So. 2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979). In Gobble v. State, [Ms. CR-05-0225, February 5, 2010] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2010), this Court further explained the admissibility of experiments or demonstrations in the courtroom as follows:
“Whether to allow the prosecutor to use mannequins to aid the jury in understanding the trajectory of a bullet through a victim is within the sound discretion of the circuit court and a conviction ‘will not be reversed on appeal unless [that discretion] has been clearly and grossly abused.’ Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (citations omitted). Further, this Court has held that the use of a mannequin to demonstrate a victim's injuries is relevant and admissible.
In Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), this Court considered whether the circuit court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant using a full-size mannequin to test the credibility of the defendant's version of the events. We stated:
“Whether to allow the prosecutor to use mannequins to aid the jury in understanding the trajectory of a bullet through a victim is within the sound discretion of the circuit court and a conviction ‘will not be reversed on appeal unless [that discretion] has been clearly and grossly abused.’ Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (citations omitted). Further, this Court has held that the use of a mannequin to demonstrate a victim's injuries is relevant and admissible.
In Ivey v. State, 369 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979), this Court considered whether the circuit court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant using a full-size mannequin to test the credibility of the defendant's version of the events. We stated:
As depictions of a theory illustrating the trajectory of the bullets, the string photographs were admissible. In Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 369 So.2d 1281 (Ala. 1979), this Court observed that testimony about the " 'path of flight' or trajectory of the bullet," is unobjectionable. 369 So.2d at 1280 (on rehearing) (quoting Wilbanks v. State, 42 Ala. App. 39, 151 So.2d 741 (1962), cert. denied, 275 Ala. 701, 151 So.2d 744 (1963)).
Other cases consistent with Smith also involved claims of accident or self-defense. See Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1281 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ denied, 369 So.2d 1281 (1979); Padgett v. State, 49 Ala. App. 130, 136, 269 So.2d 147, 152 (1972), cert. denied, 289 Ala. 749, 269 So.2d 154 (1972); Crawford v. State, 262 Ala. 191, 78 So.2d 291 (1955). In the present case, the appellant does not contend that the shooting of the two deputies was an accident.