IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2018-KA-01144-SCT BRUCE DOUGLAS MARTIN a/k/a BRUCE DOUGLAS MARTIN, JR. a/k/a BRUCE D. MARTIN

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W ILLIAM E. CHAPMAN, III TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: HEATHER MARIE ABY L. ABRAHAM ROW E , JR. BRYAN P. BUCKLEY JOHN K. BRAMLETT, JR. JOEY W AYNE MAYES COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: ERIN E. BRIGGS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA BYRD DISTRICT ATTORNEY: JOHN K. BRAMLETT, JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/01/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ. RANDOLPH, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Bruce Martin was f ound guilty of secon d

- d e g r e e mu r d e r f or the death of

Jam es Dwight Brown and was s entenced to serve f orty y ears in the custody of t h e M ississippi
De p a rtm ent of Corrections. Martin argues that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing two autopsy p hotographs to be published t o the jury

. Finding no error, we af f irm Martin’s conviction and sentence.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Martin w as indicted f or Brown’s m

urder af ter beating him to death. Brown, who had only one leg, used his prosthesis, crutches, a rolling cart, or a scooter to get a round. W hen he was at hom e, he of

ten rem oved his prosthetic l eg and got around j ust by scooting on the ground. At the t im e of his death, Bro w n h ad been d ating Martin’s m other, Sandra Patrick, f or approxim ately

f if teen y ears. ¶3. D u r i n g t h e i nvestigation, of f i cers learned that Martin and Brown had bee n i n a n
argum ent the night of

Brown’s death that had turned phy s ical. The investigation identif ied Martin as the a ggressor. B rown, who was not wearing his prosthetic l eg, attem pted to retreat to the bedroom

. ¶4. Tasha Hontz, Martin’s sister, testif ied that her m o ther called her, hy s terical, the night of the argum ent and s aid, “BJ’s 1 beat D w i g h t

. ” Hontz hung up with her m other and im m ediately called 911. Hontz and her husband drove to h er m other’s hom e. Hontz testif ied that her m other cam e out of the house and said, “BJ’s beat Dwight and he never tried to f ight back.” ¶5. Martin was a rrested and photographed the next day by the police. Detective Michael Magahey testif

ied that M artin had no injuries on his f ace, head, neck, or torso. He did have abrasions on his hands a nd f orearm s. Af

ter Martin was read his rights, he adm itted beating and stom ping Brown. 2 Magahey t esti fi e d that Martin bragged a bout giving Brown a “country

1 T ash a ref

erred to h er b r o th er as B J.

2 A t th is p o in t in th e in t erv iew , M artin h ad n o t b een in f o rm ed th at B ro w n h ad d ied

.
2boy ass whoop i n g.” Magahey f ound no evidence at the crim e scene that M artin had acted in self -def ense. ¶6. As a result of Magahey ’s investigation, Martin was c h a r g ed w ith m

urder. A jury

f ound Martin guilty

of second-degree m

urder, and he was sentenced to a term of f orty y ears. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
W h ether the trial c ourt abused its discretion in adm i tting autopsy photographs alleged by Marti n to be g ruesom e, inf lam m atory , and m ore prejudicial than probative.
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7. The standard of r e v i e w f o r t h e a d mi s s i o n o f photographs was prom ulgated in
Cham berlin v. State :

Adm ission of photograp h s by the trial court is reviewed f or abuse of d i scretion. Dam

pier v. S tate , 973 So. 2d 221, 230 (Miss. 2008). A dec i s i o n f avoring adm issibility will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that judicial discretion. Id. The discretion of the trial judge i s “alm os t u n l i m ited

. . . regardless of the gruesom eness, repetitiveness, and t h e e xtenuation of probative v alue.” Id. (quoting William s v. State , 544 So. 2d 782, 785 (Miss. 1987)). See also Bennett v. State , 933 So. 2d 930, 946 (Miss. 2006); Jones v. State , 920 So. 2d 465, 476 (Miss. 2006); McIntosh v. State , 917 So. 2d 7 8, 8 3- 8 4 ( M i s s . 2 0 05); Dubose v. State , 9 19 So. 2d 5, 1 1 (Miss. 2005); Blake v. Clein , 903 So. 2d 710, 728 (Miss. 2005); Hodges v. State , 912 So. 2d 730, 7 81 (Miss. 2005). “Som e probative value is the only requirem ent n eeded in order to support a trial judge’s decision to a d m it photographs into evidence.” Jones , 920 So. 2d at 476-477 (quoting J ordan v. State , 728 So. 2d 1088, 1094 (Miss. 1998) (quoting Scott v. State , 878 So. 2d 933, 985 (Miss.2004), overruled in part b y Lynch v. State , 951 So. 2d 549 (Miss. 2007)); McIntosh v. State , 9 17 So. 2d at 84. “So long as a photograph h as p robative value and its introduction serves a m eaningf

ul evidentiary purpose, it m ay still b e a d mi ssible despite being gruesom e, grisly , unpleasant, or even inf l am m atory

. ” D am

pier , 973 So. 2d at 230 (citations omi t t e d )

. But see McNeal v. State , 551 So. 2d 1 51 (Miss.1989)) ( the sol i t a r y i n stance w here this Court held a photograph, a close-up of the victim ’s partly decom posed skull, was gruesom e and lacked an evidentiary

purpose and was m ore prejudicial than probative). A photograph

3has a m eaningf u l e v i d e n t iary purpose when it: (1) aids in describing the circum stances of the k illing; (2) describes the location o f the body or cause of death; or (3) supplem ents or clarif ies witness testim ony . D am pier , 973 S o. 2d at 230. Sim ilarly , autopsy photographs are adm issible o nly if they possess probative value. Hodges , 912 So. 2d at 781-82 (citing P uckett v. State , 737 So. 2d 322, 338 (Miss

. 1 9 99); Noe v. State , 616 So. 2d 298 ( Miss. 1993)). The c o m m ent to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 401 states that if there is any probative value, the rule f avors adm ission of the evidence. Thorson [ v. State ], 895 So. 2d [ 85,] 120 [ (Miss. 2004)].
Cham berlin v. State , 989 So. 2d 320, 340 (Miss. 2008).
ANALYSIS ¶8. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial j udge abused his discretion in a dm itting into evidence two photographs f rom B r o w n ’s autopsy

. The pathologist determ ined that
Brown’s cause o f death was m ultiple blunt-f

orce traum a f

rom a beating, with asphy xiation and m ultiple f r actures a s contributing causes of death. The S tate arg u e d t hat it intended to introduce three 3 photographs to support the pathologist’s tes t i mo n y o f Brown’s cause of death. M artin o f

f ered t o stipulate the c a u s e o f d eath as blunt-f orce traum a. Martin had no objections to t h e p a t h o logist’s testim ony about Brown’s death b ut m o ved to suppress the
p h o t o g raphs because they would result in unf air prejudice. The State argued th a t i t

a n ticipated Martin’s testif y ing consistently with his p revious statem ents that he only h i t Brown a f

ew tim es and tha t t h e p i c tures would ref ute that testim ony . The trial judge overruled Mar t in’s objection to the photographs because he f ound them to be probative as to the cause and m anner of death.

3 T h e S tate w ith d rew o n e o f th e p h o to g rap h s, w h ich d ep i cted B ro w n ’s sto m ach f illed w i th b lo o d

. 4¶9. Dr. Mark Levaughan, a f orensic patholog i s t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he perf

orm ed Brown’s autopsy and determ ined that the m ost severe injuries suf f ered by B r o w n were m assive f ractures of all of his f

acial bones. Using a photograph (Exhibit 7.8), which depicted Brown’s lungs f illed with b lood, Levaughan testif ied that the f

acial f ractures caused a m assive hem orrhage in Brown’s airway s, leading to his aspirating, o r d r o w n i n g, in his blood. Levaughan also used a p hotograph (Exhibit 7.7) to show the jury the extent of the traum a and hem orrhaging to Brown’s head. ¶10. The State was required to prove not only that Martin caused Brown’s death but that Martin did so in a m anner that dem onstrated a depraved heart. See M iss. Code A nn. § 97-3- 19(1)(b) (Rev. 2015). The State attem pted t o do so through the testim ony of Magahey and Levaughan and by

introducing the pictures to support the witnesses’ testim ony . ¶11. This Court has consistently upheld the a d mi s s i o n o f photographs depicting bloody injuries. In Miller v. State , the C ourt h eld that the trial j udge did not abuse its discretion in admi t t i n g photographs of the v i ctim bef ore death and of the victim ’s body as i t was f ound

at the crim e scene because the photographs were “probative on the issue of how the shooting occurred.” Miller v. State , 740 S o. 2 d 858, 864-65 ( Miss. 1999). In J o r d a n v . S t a te , the
Court h eld the trial court did not err in f inding som e probative value in certain photographs because those photographs “were deem ed necessary evidence to corroborate the testim ony of the witnesses

. . . .” Jordan v. S tate , 728 So. 2d 1088, 1093-94 ( Miss. 1998). In William s

v. State , the Court h eld that thirteen pictures depicting injuries to the victim , i nclu d ing the victim ’s e x cised l ary

nx, h eart, vaginal, and anal areas, “were relevant and of probative value

5to assist D r. McGarry in his e x p l anation to the jury as well as a ssisting the jury in

understanding the nature and extent of the injuries suf f e red by [ the victim ].” William s v. State , 684 So. 2d 1179, 1198-99 (Miss. 1996). In Jackson v. S tate , the Court f

ound no abuse of discretion i n the admi s s ion of photographs depicting f atal s t ab wounds to the neck and f ace of f our children. Jackson v. State , 6 84 So. 2d 1213, 1230-31 (Miss. 1996). Likewise, here, this Court f

i nds that the two p i c t u r e s w ere relevant a nd of probative value to assist Levaughan in his e xplanation to the jury of the n ature and extent of the injuries s u f f ered by
Brown. W e f

ind no error by the trial court in adm itting these photographs into evidence. ¶12. Martin also argues that because he of f ered to stipulate that Brown’s d eath was caused by blunt-f orce traum a, the trial judge should have excluded the pictures. This Court has held that [ e]ven where the issue f or which the photograph is introduce d i s u ltim ately stipulated to, “[ a ]s a g eneral rule, the f act that a p hotograph of the d eceased in a hom i cide case m ight arouse the em otions of jurors does not o f i tself render it i n c o mp etent in evidence so long as introduction of the photograph s erves som e legitim ate, evidentiary purpose.” Miller , 740 So. 2d at 864-65 (quoting Walker v. State , 671 So. 2d 581, 601 (Miss. 1995)). ¶13. In A lexander v. State , the Court af f irm ed the adm ission of an a u topsy photograph that depicted the victim ’ s opened skull created during the a u topsy and not the assault, s im ilar to the photograph at issue in today ’s case. T hat photograph was allowed into e vidence to establish th e c a use of d e ath. Alexander v. State , 610 So. 2d 320, 3 38 (Miss. 1992). Like Martin, Alexander argued the adm ission was im proper b ecause he did n ot deny the death of the victim

. Id. That Court held that while the photograph was

6graphic, it [ w a s ] n o t overly gruesom e or inf lam m atory

. . . . The photograph establishes the cause of

death as a severe beating about the head, tem ple and ear with a blunt i nstrum ent and depicts bruising to the brain. W hile Alexander does not deny

the death of

Pannell, the cause of death was part of the State’s case-in-chief

. Id. T he Alexander C ourt held that the trial j udge acted within his discretion in determ ining that the probative value of the photograph outweighed any prejudice. Id. Here, the trial judge also f ound that the photographs served a legitim ate purpose and w ere m ore p robative than prejudicial. Martin’s argum ent is without m erit. ¶14. In McNeal v. State , the Court held that photograph s , w h i c h w e r e c lose-up shots depicting a partly decom posed, m a g g o t

- inf

ested s kull, were so gruesom e a nd lacked any evidentiary purpose and that the trial court abused its discretion in adm itting them

. McNeal

v. State , 551 So. 2 d 151, 159 (Miss. 1989). Indeed, the C ourt proclaim ed the photographs to be “som e of the m o st g ruesom e p hotographs e v er presented t o this Court.” I d . T h e Court opined that “the state could have s hown the angle and entry of the bullet wound w ithout the f ull-color, close-up view of the d ecom posed, m aggot-inf

e s ted skull.” Id. In Bonds v. State , the Court held that a close-up, f

u ll-color photograph of the shooting victim ’s rotting head was f ar m ore prejudicial tha n p robative, and in light of the evidence at the S tate’s disposal, had little, if any , evidentiary value. The State could have shown the angle of entry o f the bullet without resorting to this graphic and gruesom e depiction.
Bonds v. State , 138 So. 3d 914, 920 (Miss. 2014). ¶15. The two photographs in today ’s case do not rise to the level of gruesom eness of the pictures in McNeal or Bonds

. Martin has f ailed t o dem onstrate any prejudice arising f rom

7the adm i ssion of these p hotographs. Like in A lexander , these p hotographs ref l ect the extent of Brown’s injuries as well as the i njuries that led to his death without being overly gruesom e

or prejudicial. These p hotographs were used to aid witnesses’ t estim o ny describing Brown’s i n j u ries. W e f

ind that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adm itting these two photographs.
CONCLUSION ¶16. The sole issue presented on appeal by Martin is without m erit. T he trial court did not abuse its discretion in adm itting two autopsy photographs depicting the injuries suf f ered by
Brown , u l t i m ately , the injuries that caused h is death. W e af f irm Martin’s c o nviction and

sentence. ¶17. AFFIRMED.
KITCHENS AND K I NG, P.JJ., COLEMAN, MAX WELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.

8