all the prior categories used to cover the use of objects as evidence.... As a result, courts sometimes get hopelessly confused in their analysis.” 22 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5172 (2d ed.); see also 5 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 9:22 (3d ed.) (identifying at least three different uses and definitions of the term “demonstrative” evidence, ranging from all types of evidence, to evidence that leaves firsthand sensory impressions, to illustrative charts and summaries used to explain or interpret substantive evidence). The treatises struggle to put together a consistent definition from the multiple uses in court opinions and elsewhere. See 2 McCormick on Evidence § 212 n. 3 (Kenneth S. Broun ed., 7th ed.) (<HOLDING>). Our decision today does not seek to reconcile
holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered holding that any error in admission of demonstrative aid was harmless because evidence of defendants guilt was overwhelming recognizing critique of its own use of single term demonstrative evidence  noting that this approach joins together types of evidence offered and admitted on distinctly different theories of relevance recognizing that the value of brady evidence must be evaluated in light of the other evidence admitted at trial