was physically present in the record as an attachment to another document filed with the court clerk; however, because the court of appeals could not determine if this was the summary judgment motion actually filed, it concluded that the motion for summary judgment was not properly made a part of the appellate record and overruled appellant's points of error directed to the substance of the summary judgment ruling. Id. at 77. In contrast, no dispute exists here whether the DVD is actually the one attached to appellant’s motion for a hearing and new trial. 6 . Appellant also contends the State has waived its complaint because it did not object to appellant’s motion to supplement the record with the DVD or to this court's order granting the motion. To preserve error, the St 562 (1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Trahan, 576 So.2d 1, 8 (La.1990)
holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded holding it was reversible error to permit incourt demonstration using furniture clamp applied to motorcycle to simulate force exerted by two riders when no evidence showed that force of clamp was similar to force of riders holding that under  521 the coercive force applied against a plaintiff must result in an interference with a separate constitutional or statutory right and it is not sufficient that the right interfered with is the right to be free of the force or threat of force that was applied holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable holding force to be an element of pre1994 amendment  111 which may be satisfied by proof of force or threat of force