I don’t see why not. Except that they didn’t produce one, and they have already rested their case.
They would also have had to push it as a “theory” of what transpired, because unlike the defense, the prosecution has no single eyewitness account of what transpired. All the prosecution has are partial accounts, essentially ALL of which corroborate Zimmerman’s first-hand, sworn statement. So anything THEY fill in with IS “speculation”. It may be right, but it IS speculation and the defense WOULD call them on it and make them back it up with PROOF.
Now, consider *why* the prosecution didn’t do an enactment, by considering what an enactment does: it puts a four-dimensional axis on a set of described events and conditions, the four axes being 3D position plus time. The prosecution HAS no plausible theory of what happened that would withstand the rigor of such a storyboard.
the prosecution has an opportunity after the defense with rebuttal IF THEY CAN.