“Demonstrative evidence is admissible when it aids the fact-finder in reaching a conclusion on a matter that is material to the case. The demonstrative evidence must be relevant and probative. Further, when evidence is offered not in an effort to recreate an event, but as an aid to illustrate an expert’s testimony regarding issues related to the event, there need not be an exact replication of the circumstances of the event.” People v Bulmer, 256 Mich App 33, 35 (2003) (citations omitted).
If the evidence bears a “substantial similarity” to an issue of fact in the case, it may be admissible. Lopez v General Motors Corp, 224 Mich App 618, 627-634 (1997). In Lopez, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting two videotapes that depicted crash tests with conditions similar to, but not exactly, like those of the accident at issue. Id. at 620, 625, 634-635. The Court noted the difference between re-creation evidence and demonstrative evidence and when each type of evidence is appropriate, stating:
“[T]he distinction between demonstrative evidence and re-creation evidence, and the standards of admission associated with each, is important. When evidence is offered to show how an event occurred, the focus is upon the conditions surrounding that event. Consequently, it is appropriate that those conditions be faithfully replicated. By contrast, when the evidence is being offered not to re-create a specific event, but as an aid to illustrate an expert’s testimony concerning issues associated with the event, then there need not be as exacting a replication of the circumstances of the event.” Lopez, 224 Mich App at 628 n 13 (citations omitted).
“The burden . . . is on the party presenting the evidence to satisfy the court that the necessary similar conditions exist.” Duke v American Olean Tile Co, 155 Mich App 555, 561 (1986).