J-S49022-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

WALTER MARK SMITH

Appellant No. 391 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 5, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County

Criminal Division at No.: CP-01-CR-0000823-2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2018

Appellant Walter Mark Smith appeals from the February 5, 2018 

judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County 

(“trial court”), following his jury convictions for first-degree and third-degree 

murder.1 Upon review, we affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed.2 On the 

night of Friday June 3, 2016, into the early morning hours of Saturday June 

4, 2016, Appellant and Mitchell Jones (the “victim”) were on an alcohol and 

crack cocaine binge, spending hours drinking and smoking crack cocaine 

together. By the early morning hours the victim ended up at Appellant’s 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a), (c). 

2 Unless otherwise noted, these facts are taken from the trial court’s April 26, 

2018 opinion. See Trial Court’s Opinion, 4/26/18, at 2-4. 
J-S49022-18

- 2 -

residence on Chapel Road in Adams County, which is the location where the 

victim was later found deceased in Appellant’s upstairs bedroom. At some 

point, the two got into an altercation during which Appellant, a physically 

imposing person, beat the much more diminutive victim to death with his bare

hands. Sometime after the beating, as the victim was lying in a pool of blood 

on the bedroom floor, Appellant covered the victim’s head and part of his 

upper torso with a large black trash bag. According to Appellant, he went to 

sleep and woke up the next morning to find the victim dead on his bedroom 

floor. 

Later in the day on June 4, 2016, after some futile attempts to clean up 

evidence, including placing blood-soaked items in a washing machine, 

Appellant drove the victim’s pickup truck to visit friends and advised them that 

he had gotten into a fight with the victim after a night of “partying together.” 

Appellant told these witnesses that the victim hit him with a chair and knocked 

him down so in response Appellant “beat him to death” and that when he woke 

up the victim was stiff. Appellant’s right hand was swollen during this 

conversation. Appellant told his friends he was going away for a long time 

and came to say goodbye.

After Appellant left, the witnesses, believing the victim could be hurt 

inside Appellant’s residence, drove to Appellant’s residence, entered through 

a backdoor, observed broken items in the house and eventually discovered 

the victim dead in Appellant’s bedroom. One witness testified he knew it was 

bad as he approached the steps because a strong scent of blood was detected.
J-S49022-18

- 3 -

On Saturday, June 4, 2016, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the Conewago 

Township Police Department was dispatched to Appellant’s residence, based 

on a report that an individual had gone to the residence and discovered the 

victim’s dead body. Upon arrival, police officers observed evidence of a 

struggle and broken items inside the residence and in an upstairs bedroom 

discovered the victim deceased, lying on the floor. The officers noted a large 

amount of blood loss and obvious signs of a struggle inside the bedroom, 

including a bloody handprint sliding down the bedroom wall. In addition, the 

victim had a black trash bag covering his head and a portion of his upper 

torso. Specifically, the victim was found with a pool of blood under his head 

with a badly beaten face, injuries to his upper arms and blood smears 

throughout Appellant’s bedroom, including on the walls, on a recliner chair 

and on items within the disheveled room. Blood was also found on various 

items in Appellant’s bathroom located down the hall from the bedroom.

Appellant eventually was arrested and charged with first and thirddegree murder. On November 20, 2017, Appellant filed a pretrial motion in 

limine, objecting to the admission by the Commonwealth of various 

photographs depicting the crime scene and the victim’s deceased body. In 

particular, Appellant alleged that the photographs at issue were “either 

cumulative, inflammatory or not essential to the Commonwealth’s case.” 

Appellant’s Motion, 11/20/17, at ¶ 4. Following a hearing, the trial court 

ordered as follows:
J-S49022-18

- 4 -

1. Color autopsy photographs identified as numbers 55, 56, 014 

and 016 are admissible as there is no longer any objection being 

pursued by Defense.

2. Color autopsy photographs 145 and 146 are admissible 

provided that the photographs are cropped to the general area of 

the eyes only.

3. As [Appellant’s] objection to the admissibility of autopsy 

photographs of the Hyoid Bone, specifically photographs 113, 114, 

117, 119 and 120, it is hereby ordered that the motion is granted 

in part. The Commonwealth may introduce one of that series of 

photographs in color to further illustrate the testimony of its 

expert witnesses with regard to the hemorrhaging and Hyoid Bone 

fracture. The photograph may be introduced in color and 

presented via projection on the screen. The remaining 

photographs in that series are precluded as cumulative. 

4. [Appellant’s] objection to autopsy photographs of [Appellant’s] 

hand, identified as photograph number 017 is denied. The 

Commonwealth may introduce that photograph in color and by 

projection on the screen.

5. As [Appellant] indicated during oral argument that he no longer 

has objection thereto the crime scene photograph identified as 

number 134 is admissible in color and may be displayed on the 

projection screen.

6. [Appellant’s] motion to preclude the autopsy photograph 

identified as number 008 is denied. As the photo demonstrates 

significant bleeding and the swelling to the left side of the victim’s 

face and considering the fact [Appellant] is right-handed, the [trial 

court] finds the photograph fairly depicts the injuries sustained by 

the victim. The amount and presence of blood on the victim does 

not render this photograph inflammatory. The photograph may 

be briefly displayed on the projection screen at pertinent times 

during the Commonwealth’s expert’s pathologist’s testimony.

7. [Appellant’s] objection to the crime scene photographs 

numbers 142, 160 and 159 is denied. The photographs fairly 

depict the victim at the crime scene. These photographs are 

necessary to show the appropriate detail of alleged hemorrhaging 

and injuries to the victim’s left and right arms. The [trial court] 

specifically finds that the black and white photographs do not 

provide enough clarity or detail to adequately illustrate the 

condition of the victim’s arms. The photographs are not 

cumulative. They may be displayed on the screen in color. 

8. Photograph number 158 is also admissible to show the 

condition of the victim’s head at the crime scene after the removal 

of the trash bag covering from his upper torso and head.
J-S49022-18

- 5 -

Trial Court Order, 12/5/17, ¶¶ 1-8. The case ultimately proceeded to a jury 

trial, where, as the trial court noted, the Commonwealth

introduced 83 different photographs. The vast majority of the 

photographs were benign. The photographs included aerial views 

of the home where the murder occurred, the crime scene, 

Appellant following his arrest, the path taken by the witnesses and 

officers as they entered the home and discovered the [victim’s] 

body in the upstairs bedroom, the washing machine with wet 

bedding inside depicting Appellant’s attempt to clean evidence of 

the murder, downstairs living room couches, a hallway view up 

the stairs, a chair and bucket sitting outside of the bedroom, the 

bathroom taken from the hallway and other photographs from 

inside of Appellant’s house.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/18, 4-5. At trial, Appellant raised a claim of selfdefense, claiming that the victim attacked him with a screwdriver. He also 

argued that he lacked the requisite specific intent to kill to sustain a conviction 

for murder in the first degree. Nonetheless, following a three-day trial, the 

jury, on December 7, 2017, found Appellant guilty of murder in the first and 

third degrees. On February 5, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a 

term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant did not 

file any post-sentence motions. Appellant timely appealed to this Court. The 

trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors 

complained of on appeal. After a considerable delay, Appellant complied, 

raising a single issue: 

[T]he [trial] court committed an error of law and abuse of 

discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to admit into evidence 

the photographs used in Appellant’s trial without modification. 

Said photographs were unduly prejudicial in that, inter alia, they 

were unnecessary and unduly inflamed the passions of the jury to 

the extent that the jury was unable to reflect on the evidence in 

an objective manner.
J-S49022-18

- 6 -

Rule 1925(b) Statement, 4/10/18. In response, the trial court issued a 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, concluding that Appellant has waived his assertion 

of error. Specifically, the trial court noted that Appellant “has failed to 

articulate which photographs he finds were erroneously admitted into 

evidence. In addition, Appellant fails to specify how the photographs were 

unfairly prejudicial or inflammatory.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/18, at 2. The 

trial court, nonetheless, reasoned that, even if Appellant did not waive the 

issue, he still is not entitled to relief because the photographs were not 

inflammatory.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for our review: 

“[w]hether the trial court’s admission of color photographs, depicting autopsy 

and crime scene was [in] error and an abuse of discretion, when the photos 

were inflammatory and possessed no essential evidentiary value to the case.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 5. At the outset, we note that Appellant failed to preserve 

his argument that the photographs in question possessed no “essential 

evidentiary value,” because he did not raise this argument before the trial 

court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived 

and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).3 

Our standard of review is well-settled: “The admissibility of photos of 

the corpse in a homicide case is a matter within the discretion of the trial 

____________________________________________

3 Similarly, insofar as Appellant challenges the manner in which the 

Commonwealth displayed the photographs to the jury, such challenge also is 

waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). 
J-S49022-18

- 7 -

court, and only an abuse of discretion will constitute reversible error.” 

Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 138 (Pa. 2008) (citations 

omitted). An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of 

judgment, but rather occurs where the court has reached a conclusion that 

overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly 

unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. 

Commonwealth v. Davido, 106 A.3d 611, 645 (Pa. 2014). 

We now turn our attention to Appellant’s argument that the color 

photographs in question, which he identified as photograph numbers 8, 142, 

158, 159, 160, are inflammatory.4 

When the Commonwealth seeks to introduce into evidence photographs 

of a victim’s injuries, the trial court must engage in a two-part analysis. First, 

the court must decide if the photograph is inflammatory. Commonwealth v. 

Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 494 (Pa. 2015). If not, the photograph is admissible 

if it is relevant and can assist the jury’s understanding of the facts. Id. If, 

however, it is inflammatory, the trial court must decide whether or not the 

photograph is of such essential evidentiary value that its need clearly 

outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors. 

Id. For a photograph to be deemed inflammatory, “the depiction must be of 

such a gruesome nature or be cast in such unfair light that it would tend to 

____________________________________________

4 As the trial court pointed out, photograph number 8, 142, 158, 159, and 160 

correspond to Commonwealth’s trial exhibits number 97, 61, 62, 63, and 64, 

respectively. 
J-S49022-18

- 8 -

cloud an objective assessment of the guilt or innocence of the appellant.” 

Commonwealth v. Dotter, 589 A.2d 726, 729 (Pa. Super. 1991), appeal 

denied, 607 A.2d 249 (Pa. 1992). The visibility of blood in a photograph, 

however, does not necessarily require a finding that the photograph is 

inflammatory. Commonwealth v. Crawely, 526 A.2d 334, 341 (Pa. 1987). 

In Woodard, the appellant was sentenced to death in connection with 

the murder of a two-year-old boy. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the 

appellant argued, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in 

permitting the Commonwealth to admit into evidence thirteen autopsy 

photographs of the boy, twelve of which were in color. The Court, upon 

review, held that the trial court acted within its discretion when it concluded 

that the images depicted were not inflammatory. The Court reasoned that 

“the twelve challenged color photographs portrayed various parts of [the 

boy’s] body and illustrated the nature and extent of his injuries, which would 

have not been readily detectable in a black and white photo.” Woodard, 129 

A.3d at 494-95. Moreover, the Court noted that the single black and white 

photo depicted an internal injury, i.e., the boy’s lacerated liver. The jury in 

Woodard was not given the photographs to examine during deliberations, 

but viewed them in connection with the Commonwealth’s expert’s testimony 

explaining the findings of the autopsy report. Id. at 495.

The Court in Woodard further noted that even if the photographs were 

inflammatory, “we conclude, without hesitation, that they were highly 

probative as they related directly to the requisite elements of first degree 
J-S49022-18

- 9 -

murder, i.e., that [the boy] was unlawfully killed, as opposed to having 

drowned by accident, and that [the a]ppellant possessed the specific intent to 

kill.” Id. Finally, the Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the 

photographs constituted cumulative evidence because the Commonwealth’s 

expert testified to the nature of the boy’s injuries and the cause of his death. 

In so doing, the Court pointed that the “[t]he mere fact that a medical 

examiner testified to the nature of the victim’s injuries and the cause of death 

does not render the photographs of the victim duplicative.” Id. citing 

(Commonwealth v. Watkins, 108 A.3d 692, 724 (Pa. 2014); 

Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307, 319 (Pa. 2008) (holding that 

photographic evidence of the victim’s injuries is not rendered duplicative 

merely because a medical examiner or other comparable expert witness has 

conveyed to the jury, in appropriate clinical language, the nature of the 

victim’s injuries and the cause of death). Indeed, the presentation of 

testimony as to a person’s injuries “does not render photographs per se

inadmissible.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017, 1034 (Pa. 2012) 

(citations omitted). 

Instantly, even though the Commonwealth and trial court urge us to find 

Appellant’s sole evidentiary issue waived, because he fails to offer any specific 

indication as to how the color photographs could have potentially inflamed the 

jurors’ passions, we decline to find waiver. After careful review of the record 

and the relevant case law, we conclude that that the trial court accurately and 

thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant’s claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 
J-S49022-18

- 10 -

4/26/18, at 6-13. We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Appellant’s motion in limine and permitting the 

Commonwealth to introduce the color photographs of the victim, depicting the 

crime scene and autopsy. See Woodard, supra; see also Commonwealth

v. King, 721 A.2d 763, 772-73 (Pa. 1998) (holding that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in admitting photograph depicting the manner in which 

the victim was tied and which showed graphic signs of the body’s 

decomposition, including blackening of hands and secretion of bodily fluids); 

Commonwealth v. Stein, 548 A.2d 1230, 1234 (Pa. Super. 1988) (noting 

that a defendant “will not be permitted to brutalize his victim and then keep 

the jury from learning exactly how brutal the assault was.”), appeal denied, 

557 A.2d 723 (Pa. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s February 5, 

2018 judgment of sentence order. We further direct that a copy of the trial

court’s opinion dated April 26, 2018 be attached to any future filings in this 

case.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/27/2018
Circulated 10/31/2018 11:27 AM ,, 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL 

vs. 

WALTER MARK SMITH 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) 

CP-01-CR-823-2016 �

�� 1r,

;.:1 

,�

� [�,I .,1 

m :,; r ' 

("JI Pl � c/ D : .. i 

.r:- . I .. -·, 

Previously on March 29, 2018 this Court entered a short one paragrapfi;l "'/ 

Opinion pursuant to Pa R.A.P. 1925(a) in which it was noted that Appellant failed 

l to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of by the Court ordered 

deadline of March 23, 2018 and requesting that the Appellate Court deem all 

issues waived. 

On April 10, 2018, some eighteen (18) days after the filing deadline, 

Defense Counsel filed a Concise Statement of Errors Complained on Appeal. In 

that statement Appellate raises one issue for review. Specifically, a generic 

allegation that the trial court committed an error of law and abuse of discretion in 

permitting the Commonwealth to admit into evidence photographs used in 

Appellant's trial without modification. Appellant suggests the photographs were 

unduly prejudicial and that they were unnecessary and unduly inflamed the 

passions of the jury. 

In Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme 

Court rejected Defendant's argument that photographs of the decedent's body 

were inflammatory, had no overwhelming evidentiary value and were cumulative 

of other evidence. The Wright Court found that appellant failed to specify how 

1 

SCANNED 

�\\ 
they were inflammatory, why they lacked evidentiary value, or what other 

evidence they duplicated. Appellant merely restated the standards, in hopes the 

Court would formulate arguments on his behalf. The same situation presents 

itself instantly. 

Indeed, at this point Appellant has failed to articulate which photographs 

he finds were erroneously admitted into evidence. In addition, Appellant fails to 

specify how the photographs were unfairly prejudicial or inflammatory. 

Even if the Superior Court determines that Appellant has not waived the 

issue due to the failure to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of in a 

timely manner, the following is offered in support of decisions of the Trial Court to 

admit a few, but not nearly all, of the Commonwealth's proffered photographs. It 

is respectfully requested that this Court's judgment of sentence be affirmed. 

On Saturday, June 4, 2016, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the Conewago 

Township Police Department was dispatched to a residence on Chapel Road in 

Conewago Township, Adams County, based on a report that an individual had 

gone to the residence and there discovered the body of Mitchell Jones, 

deceased. Upon arrival police officers observed evidence of a struggle and 

broken items inside the residence and in an upstairs bedroom discovered 

Mitchell Jones, deceased, lying on the floor. The officers noted a large amount 

of blood loss and obvious signs of a struggle inside the bedroom, including a 

bloody handprint sliding down the bedroom wall. In addition, Mitchell Jones had 

a black trash bag covering his head and a portion of his upper torso. 

2 
The evidence at trial revealed that Appellant and Mitchell Jones were 

lifelong friends. On the night of Friday June 3, 2016, into the early morning hours 

of Saturday June 4, 2016, Appellant and Mitchell Jones were on an alcohol and 

crack cocaine binge, spending hours drinking and smoking crack cocaine 

together. By the early morning hours Mitchell Jones ended up at the Appellant's 

residence on Chapel Road in Adams County, which is the location where Mitchell 

Jones was later found deceased in Appellant's upstairs bedroom. At some point, 

the parties got into an altercation during which the Appellant, a physically 

imposing person, beat the much more diminutive Mitchell Jones to death with his 

bare hands. 

At trial, Appellant raised a claim of self-defense arguing that Mitchell 

Jones attacked him with a screwdriver which necessitated Appellant defending 

himself to the degree that he beat Mitchell Jones to death in the upstairs 

bedroom.

1 The beating was brutal and savage. Sometime after the beating, as 

Mitchell Jones was lying in a pool of blood on the bedroom floor, Appellant 

covered Mitchell Jones' head and part of his upper torso with a large black trash 

bag. According to Appellant he went to sleep and awoke the next morning to find 

his friend, Mitchell Jones, dead on his bedroom floor. At the crime scene 

Decedent was found with a pool of blood under his head with a badly beaten 

face, injuries to his upper arms and blood smears throughout Appellant's 

bedroom, including on the walls, on a recliner chair and on items within the 

disheveled room. Blood was also found on various items in Appellant's bathroom 

located down the hall from the bedroom. 

1 On June 4, 2016 Appellant originally told other friends Mitchell Jones attacked him with a chair. 

3 
Later in the day on June 4, 2016 after some futile attempts to clean up 

evidence, including placing blood soaked items in a clothes washer, Appellant 

drove Mitchell Jones pickup truck to visit friends and advised that he had gotten 

into a fight with Mitchell Jones after a night of "partying together." Appellant told 

these witnesses that Mitchell Jones hit him with a chair and knocked him down 

so in response Appellant "beat him to death" and that when he woke up Mitchell 

was stiff. Appellant's right hand was swollen during this conversation. Appellant 

told his friends he was going away for a long time and came to say goodbye. 

After Appellant left, the witnesses, believing Mitchell Jones could be hurt 

inside Appellant's residence, drove to Appellant's residence, entered through a 

backdoor, observed broken items in the house and eventually discovered 

Mitchell Jones dead in Appellant's bedroom. One witness testified he knew it 

was bad as he approached the steps because a strong scent of blood was 

detected. 

At trial the defense raised a claim of self-defense as well as the defense 

that Appellant lacked the requisite specific intent to kill necessary to sustain a 

conviction for murder in the first degree. Following a three (3) day jury trial, the 

jury returned verdicts of guilty on Count 1, Murder of the First Degree and Count 

2, Murder of the Third Degree. The verdict was rendered on December 7, 2017. 

On February 5, 2018 this Court sentenced Appellant to a mandatory term of life 

in prison without any possibility of parole. 

At trial the Commonwealth introduced 83 different photographs. The vast 

majority of the photographs were benign. The photographs included aerial views 

4 
of the home where the murder occurred, the crime scene, Appellant following his 

arrest, the path taken by the witnesses and officers as they entered the home 

and discovered the body of Mitchell Jones in the upstairs bedroom, the washing 

machine with wet bedding inside depicting Appellant's attempt to clean evidence 

of the murder, downstairs living room couches, a hallway view up the stairs, a 

chair and bucket sitting outside of the bedroom, the bathroom taken from the 

hallway and other photographs from inside of Appellant's home. From the tardy 

Concise Statement of Errors Complained of this Court can still not decipher 

which trial exhibits Appellant suggests where unduly prejudicial as being 

unnecessary and inflammatory. 

This Court is left to surmise that Appellants unspecified complaints pertain 

to the few autopsy and crime scene photos showing decedent's body. Prior to 

trial Appellant filed a Motion in Limine seeking to preclude the Commonwealth 

from admitting into evidence various autopsy photographs and crime scene 

photographs depicting the Decedent. This Court held a hearing on Appellant's 

Motion in Limine at which time Appellant, through counsel, withdrew the 

objections to many of the photographs contained within Appellant's motion. This 

Court made a careful review of all photographs to which Appellant was objecting. 

On December 4, 2017, after much deliberation, this Court entered an Order 

addressing each of the remaining photographs identified in Appellant's Motion in 

Limine. The general basis for this Court's ruling is set forth in that Order of Court 

as the specific photographs are discussed. 

5 
The admissibility of photos of the corpse in a homicide case is a matter 

within the discretion of the trial court, and only an abuse of discretion will 

constitute reversible error. Commonwealth v. McCutchen, 454 A.2d 547, 549 

(Pa. 1982). 

As noted repeatedly by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 

a criminal homicide trial is, by its very nature, unpleasant, and the 

photographic images of the injuries inflicted are merely consonant 

with the brutality of the subject of inquiry. To permit the disturbing 

nature of the images of the victim to rule the question of 

admissibility would result in the exclusion of all photographs of the 

homicide victim, and would defeat one of the essential functions of 

a criminal trial, inquiry into the intent of the actor. There is no need 

to so overextend an attempt to sanitize the evidence of the 

condition of the body as to deprive the Commonwealth of 

opportunities of proof in support of the onerous burden of proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 639 A.2d 786, 788-789 (Pa. 1994) (citing, 

Mccutchen, 554 A.2d at 549. 

Further, the condition of the victim's body provides evidence of the 

assailant's intent, and, even where the body's condition can be described 

through testimony from a medical examiner, such testimony does not obviate the 

admissibility of photographs. Jacobs, 639 A.2d at 789. See also, 

Commonwealth v. Rush, 646 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1994). 

Further, neither graphic testimony nor the pictures gruesome nature 

precludes admissibility of photographs of a homicide scene. See, e.g., 

Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 690 A.2d 203, 217 (Pa. 1997). ("while the 

presence of blood on the victim depicted in the photographs is unpleasant, it is 

not in and of itself inflammatory."); Commonwealth v. Gorby, 588 A.2d 902, 908 

6 
(Pa. 1991) (no abuse of discretion in allowing photographs "which depicted a 

large gaping gash on the victim's neck as well as thirteen other knife wounds 

located on the victim's hands, arms, back, and chest"); Commonwealth v. 

Chester, 587 A.2d 1367, 1373-74 (Pa. 1991) (no abuse of discretion in allowing 

photographs of the victim's slashed throat, open eye, and other head injuries as 

evidence of specific intent to kill). 

Yet another case supports the decision of the Court in allowing a few of 

the multitude of crime scene photographs to come into evidence in this case. In 

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 555 A2d 818 (Pa. 1989), thirteen photographs 

were admitted of the victim's body which depicted her beaten face, the 

strangulation area of her neck, wounds on her hands and fingers, bite marks on 

her legs and explicit photographs of her chest and abdomen related to the sexual 

nature of the attack. Our Supreme Court concluded that "the photographs 

admitted were not inflammatory and were relevant in aiding the jury to 

understand the events of the crime charged." Edwards, 555 A.2d 188. 

In a homicide trial it is difficult to imagine a case where the 

Commonwealth would not be permitted to introduce photographic evidence of the 

condition of the victim's body considering its need to prove Defendant's specific 

intent and the circumstances surrounding the crime. In this case the 

photographs admitted were limited to a few of the many the Commonwealth 

requested, were relevant to issues for the jury's determination and were not 

prejudicial. Throughout trial the Court took every effort to make sure that the 

presentation of the photographs to the jurors was minimal in number and 

7 
duration of display and prevented further undo focus on the photographs by not 

allowing any of the photographs to go out with the jury during their deliberations. 

This Court carefully exercised the discretion afforded to it to limit the 

number and types of photographs shown to the jury so as to minimize any 

possibility of unfair prejudice to Appellant. For example, the Defense objected to 

five (5) autopsy photographs of Decedent's hyoid bone. The Commonwealth 

sought to introduce all five (5) of those photographs arguing that they show the 

fractures to the Decedent's hyoid bone from different angles. The 

Commonwealth argued that the photographs illustrate the testimony of the 

Commonwealth's expert witness with regard to the hemorrhaging and hyoid bone 

fracture, and the significance of those injuries. To limit the inundation of graphic 

images to the jury and to prevent introduction of cumulative evidence, this Court 

allowed the Commonwealth to introduce· only one (1) out of the series of five (5) 

photographs. An autopsy photograph of decedent's blood covered hand was 

also admitted. (Com. Ex. 100). That picture was relevant to show the amount of 

blood on decedent's hand relative to the items Appellant alleges were weapons 

brandished against him (screwdriver or chair), as well as decedents true 

condition following the beating. The picture shows just how brutal the beating 

was. The Court also allowed introduction of an additional autopsy photograph to 

demonstrate the significant bleeding and swelling to the left side of the victim's 

face. (Com. Ex. 97). The photograph was relevant considering the fact that the 

Appellant was alleged to have beaten Decedent to death with his bare hands and 

the fact that Appellant is right handed. The injuries Mitchell Jones sustained to 

8 
the left side of his face are consistent with being struck by a right handed person. 

The Court further found that the photograph fairly depicted the injuries sustained 

by the decedent at the hands of Appellant. Also admitted were close up autopsy 

photographs of decedent's eyes to illustrate the petechial hemorrhaging. (Com. 

Ex. 104 and 105). Autopsy photos of the inside of decedent's lips were also 

admitted to show injuries and one source of significant bleeding. (Com. Ex. 101 

and 102). Those photographs were allowed to be used at pertinent times during 

the Commonwealth's presentation of its expert pathologist at trial. 

Finally, the Court admitted a total of five (5) color copies of crime scene 

photographs showing decedent, out of the dozens of photographs the 

Commonwealth requested, to which Appellant objected to four (4).

2 The Court 

found that the photographs were necessary to show in appropriate detail the 

hemorrhaging and injuries to the decedent's left and right arms. (Com. Ex. 61, 

62, and 64). This Court specifically found that black and white copies provided to 

the Court for consideration did not provide enough clarity or detail to illustrate the 

condition of the decedent's arms. The Court also allowed the introduction of one 

wide-angle photograph of the bedroom showing the decedent on the floor as 

police discovered him.

3 Finally, the Court allowed the admission of a photograph 

to show the condition of the decedent's head at the crime scene following the 

removal of the trash bag that was covering his upper torso and head. (Com. Ex. 

2 The crime scene photographs to which Appellant objected in his Motion in Limine correlate to 

trial exhibits 61, 62, 63, and 64. 

3 Appellant withdrew his objection to this photograph (trial exhibit 60, scene #134) during 

argument on the Appellant's Motion in Limine. 

9 
63). The Court found the photographs to not be cumulative and briefly allowed 

their display to the jury. 

Importantly, this Court granted Appellant's Motion in Limine with regard to 

all remaining photographs as set forth in Appellant's Motion, finding the 

photographs to be cumulative and lacking in any independent evidentiary value 

when considering the potentially inflammatory nature of those additional 

photographs. This Court took great care to limit the number and the nature and 

the type of photographs which the Commonwealth was allowed to introduce in 

order to minimize and reduce any prejudicial and inflammatory effect they might 

have on the jury. 

As noted at trial, Appellant's defense was one of self-defense and the 

lack of requisite specific intent. The photographs that were admitted were 

relevant to show the utter brutality of the beating Appellant inflicted upon Mitchell 

Jones with Appellant's bare hands. They were relevant to show it was not one or 

two punches delivered to disarm an alleged attacker, but depicted a massive 

amount of bleeding and hemorrhaging sustained by the decedent. They were 

relevant to show that the struggle and the attack was not in an isolated location 

where the parties stood but extended throughout Appellant's bedroom. 

Furthermore, at trial Appellant, through experts, argued that Mitchell Jones 

did not die from the beating inflicted by Appellant, but rather Appellant only 

inflicted superficial injuries which due to the decedent's level of cocaine 

intoxication allowed for the hemorrhaging and excessive bleeding. Therefore, it 

was Appellant himself who placed the amount of blood and the nature of 

10 
bleeding into issue in furtherance of his defense. The photographs were relevant 

to show the location, source, and amount of bleeding. 

To the extent Appellant argues that the photographs would have been 

more appropriately admitted in black and white this Court carefully reviewed the 

proffered black and white photographs and determined that due to the amount of 

debris and clutter throughout Appellant's bedroom and the fact that there was a 

black trash bag covering decedent's head, decedent was wearing a black 

sleeveless t-shirt and found lying next to what appears to be a black circular 

object with dark colored magazine clippings and photographs on the floor under 

and around decedent, the black and white photographs did not provide sufficient 

detail or contrast as to what was blood evidence versus what was clutter and 

other items within the room. 

In addition, in order to prove Appellant's intent the Commonwealth 

proffered evidence that there was a significant amount of decedent's blood found 

inside of the black trash bag suggesting that the bag was placed over the 

decedent's head and upper torso while he was still alive. The black and white 

photographs would not accurately depict the relationship between the dark 

congealed blood and the black trash bag in a manner to allow for the jurors 

understanding and comprehension of evidence as to whether a bag was placed 

over decedent following his death as Appellant suggested or prior to death as the 

Commonwealth alleged. With respect to photographs of decedent's arms, the 

Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of hemorrhaging, bruising and 

bleeding under decedent's skin. Again, due to the amount of clutter, debris and 

11 
other dark objects found close in proximity to decedent's body the black and 

white photographs didn't sufficiently show whether the marks in the photograph 

were dirt and debris or hemorrhaging as the Commonwealth alleged. The color 

photographs were necessary to provide sufficient detail to allow the 

Commonwealth to present arguments in furtherance of satisfying its burden of 

proof. 

It is noted that all of the appellate authority cited in this opinion was 

handed down more than 20 years ago. Sadly, it is this Court's belief that today's 

society has become considerably more desensitized to graphic images then at 

previous times. The advent of the internet plus a 24 hour news cycle, coupled 

with the content of popular movies and shows on cable television, all of which are 

streamed in color images, often in video, have raised the threshold of what might 

be required to render photographic or video evidence inflammatory. 

During trial the Court carefully watched the jurors as images were 

presented to them and this Court observed no outward expression of emotion or 

any visceral effect from viewing a few photographs of the Decedent at the crime 

scene and autopsy pictures. The jurors relatively limited exposure in terms of the 

number of photographs and the duration of viewing of the photographs, helped 

provide a full picture of the brutality of the beating and the circumstances of the 

crime helping the jurors ascertain Appellant's true intent. The Court observed no 

signs that the photographs inflamed the jury to the point that the photographs 

were unfairly prejudicial. 

12 
) 

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that judgment of sentence be 

affirmed. 

BY THE COURT: 

THOMAS R. CAMPBELL 

Judge 

Date filed: April 26, 2018 

COPIES 

1-0riginal 

1-Court Administrator -en:,�t. 

1-Brian R. Sinnett, Esquire -�e.ct\"C(\\t.. 

1-Anthony E. Miley, Esquire-�' 

1-Adams County Legal Journal-e\ft..'<'\'v\'i1-District & County Reports--eiYW\ 

1-media copy- e..o�e_ 

13