SAMUEL ALLEN JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-144

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela Cox, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and William Pafford, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ROWE, J.

Samuel Allen Jackson appeals his judgment and sentence for aggravated 

battery with a deadly weapon. We affirm all issues raised in his appeal and write 

only to address Jackson’s argument that the trial court erred in admitting a 

photograph depicting the victim’s injuries. Jackson argues that the photograph was 

not relevant, was inflammatory, and had a high probability of creating unfair 
2

prejudice. We disagree. Because the photograph was relevant to prove that Jackson 

used a deadly weapon in the course of the battery and the photograph was not 

shocking in nature, the trial court did not err in admitting the photograph into 

evidence. 

“[E]vidence of victim injury, even where not an element of the offense 

charged, is admissible if otherwise relevant.” T.B. v. State, 669 So. 2d 1085, 1086 

(Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc). Photographic evidence of injuries in an aggravated 

battery case may be relevant to determine whether a battery occurred in the first 

place, and if the charge is aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, to demonstrate 

that the weapon in question was used in a manner that would qualify it as a deadly 

weapon. Id.; see also Brooks v. State, 726 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding 

that evidence of the victim’s injuries was relevant to corroborate that a battery took 

place and that the wooden-handled kitchen knife used in that battery qualified as a

deadly weapon).

Here, the photograph at issue was offered by the State to prove that Jackson 

used the knife in a manner that would allow the knife to qualify as a deadly weapon 

when he stabbed the victim. § 784.045(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2014). The victim 

sustained two stab wounds on the side of his back and two in his chest. The 

photograph depicted the victim lying on a hospital bed wearing a breathing mask 

and with IV tubes running to his body. The photograph also showed gauze on the 
3

victim’s chest, where he was stabbed twice. Other photographs were admitted into 

evidence without objection, but those showed close-up views of the stab wounds. 

The photograph of the victim in the hospital bed indicated to the jury in a way that 

other subsequent photographic exhibits submitted by the State could not, the location 

of the stab wounds, specifically, the proximity of those wounds to the victim’s heart. 

Thus, the photograph was relevant to whether Jackson used the knife in a deadly 

manner.

Further, the photograph’s relevance was not substantially outweighed by the 

danger of undue prejudice. The Florida Supreme Court explained the standard for 

admitting graphic photographs of a victim: 

This Court has long followed the rule that photographs are admissible 

if they are relevant and not so shocking in nature as to defeat the value 

of their relevance. Where photographs are relevant, “then the trial judge 

in the first [instance] and this Court on appeal must determine whether 

the gruesomeness of the portrayal is so inflammatory as to create an 

undue prejudice in the minds of the jury and [distract] them from a fair 

and unimpassioned consideration of the evidence.” We have

consistently upheld the admission of allegedly gruesome photographs 

where they were independently relevant or corroborative of other 

evidence.

Hertz v. State, 803 So. 2d 629, 641 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 

925, 928 (Fla. 1990)). 

The photograph of the victim in this case could not be described as gruesome 

or graphic. It did not depict significant amounts of blood. In fact, the victim’s 

wounds were covered by gauze. Further, the victim had recovered by the time of 
4

trial and the jury was instructed that its “verdict should not be influenced by feelings 

of prejudice, bias or sympathy.”

The photograph was not shocking in nature; other photographs depicting the 

victim’s injuries were admitted into evidence; the victim had fully recovered by the 

time of trial; and the jury was instructed appropriately to avoid acting out of 

prejudice, bias, or sympathy. Therefore, the danger of unfair prejudice did not 

outweigh the photograph’s relevance.

For these reasons, Jackson’s judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

LEWIS and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.