Case Title: Jones v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: cr96-541

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Jack JONES, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-541                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 16, 1997


1.   Evidence -- photographs -- admission and relevancy within trial court's
     discretion. -- The admission and relevancy of photographs is a
     matter within the sound discretion of the trial court;
     although highly deferential to the trial court's discretion in
     these matters, the supreme court has rejected a carte blanche
     approach to admission of photographs where claims of relevance
     are tenuous and prejudice is great and expects the trial court
     to carefully weigh the probative value of photographs against
     their prejudicial nature; the supreme court requires the trial
     court first to consider whether such evidence, although
     relevant, creates a danger of unfair prejudice and then to
     determine whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially
     outweighs its probative value.

2.   Evidence -- photographs -- when admissible. -- Even the most gruesome
     photographs may be admissible if they tend to shed light on
     any issue, to corroborate testimony, or if they are essential
     in proving a necessary element of a case, are useful to enable
     a witness to testify more effectively, or to enable the jury
     better to understand testimony; other acceptable purposes are
     to show the condition of the victim's bodies, the probable
     type or location of the injuries, and the position in which
     the bodies were discovered; if a photograph serves no valid
     purpose and could only be used to inflame the jury's passions,
     it should be excluded.

3.   Criminal law -- intent -- nature and extent of victim's wounds relevant to
     showing of. -- The nature and extent of a victim's wounds are
     relevant to a showing of intent.

4.   Evidence -- photographs -- trial court did not abuse discretion in
     admitting photo of victim's skull prior to surgery. -- The supreme
     court agreed with the trial court's assessment that a
     photograph, taken prior to surgery, of the eleven-year-old
     victim's skull with the scalp peeled back aided the jury in
     understanding the testimony of the neurosurgeon who performed
     the surgery regarding the nature and extent of the victim's
     head injuries; the supreme court could not say that the trial
     court abused its discretion in admitting the photograph.

5.   Criminal law -- death penalty -- harmless-error review -- clarification of
     Skipper interpretation -- harmless-error analysis not precluded regarding
     errors in jury's consideration of mitigating evidence. -- Clarifying its
     position in two earlier opinions, the supreme court declared
     that although Skipper v. South Carolina,