Title: Tinsley v. State
Citation: 358 N.E.2d 743
Docket Number: 576S141
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: January 3, 1977

358 N.E.2d 743 (1977)
Clyde TINSLEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 576S141.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
January 3, 1977.
John G. Bunner, Evansville, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John P. Avery, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ARTERBURN, Justice.
The Appellant, Clyde Tinsley, was convicted of second degree murder on December 4, 1975. Sentenced to life imprisonment *744 on December 17, 1975, the Appellant filed his motion to correct errors on February 11, 1976. It is from the denial of this motion on the day of its filing that this appeal is taken.
The Appellant was apprehended on the evening of September 4, 1975, by an off-duty Evansville policeman who witnessed the shooting of one Marcellus Wilcox. After chasing him on foot and making the arrest, the officer found near the Appellant a gun which was shown by ballistics tests to be the murder weapon. The Appellant was also identified by a relative of the decedent, a teenage neighbor of the decedent, and a friend of the mother of the teenage boy, all of whom witnessed the crime.
The first issue raised by the Appellant is whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State's Exhibits No. 8, No. 10 and No. 11. Exhibits No. 8 and No. 10 are color slides and Exhibit No. 11 is a black and white photograph. Each of these exhibits shows the body of the decedent, from approximately the waist up, in the morgue. Because an incision from an autopsy is also visible, the Appellant apparently contends that these exhibits were inflammatory and prejudicial.
This court has, in the past, been wary of the effects of post-autopsy photographs. Warrenburg v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 572, 298 N.E.2d 434; Kiefer v. State, (1958) 239 Ind. 103, 153 N.E.2d 899. We do not think, however, that the exhibits here can be classified with those of the Warrenberg and Kiefer decisions. First, the exhibits in this case are not unnecessarily gruesome. The incision is visible in only two of the three exhibits questioned here. The incision portrayed extends across only part of the decedent's chest and appears to have been rather skillfully closed. It is located near the wounds inflicted on the decedent and does not appear to be any more gruesome than the wounds themselves.
Second, the exhibits in question here were relevant and material. Exhibit No. 8 is a front view of the decedent showing two bullet wounds in the chest. Exhibit No. 10 is a color slide of the back side of the decedent showing exit wounds. No autopsy incision is visible in this exhibit. Exhibit No. 11 is a photograph taken from a position near the body's shoulder and again depicts the wounds inflicted in this case. These photographs, which elucidated testimony concerning the nature and extent of wounds which caused the death of the decedent, were properly admitted. See New v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 307, 259 N.E.2d 696.
The Appellant also urges error in the giving of certain instructions by the trial court. The first instruction so challenged is State's Instruction No. 1:
It is argued by the Appellant that the last paragraph of this instruction acts as a "disparagement of the defense of self-defense" and would "imply to the jury that the court felt that there was, in fact, no apparent danger to the defendant-appellant, or that he has no reasonable ground for apprehension." We do not agree. This instruction was approved in its entirety by this Court in Brown v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 594, 265 N.E.2d 699. It is approved here.
The Appellant also finds error in the giving of State's Instruction No. 5:
This instruction was approved by this Court in its entirety in New v. State, supra. The Appellant argues, however, that this instruction neglects to instruct on the State's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and thereby effectively shifts the burden to the defense. This is not persuasive. The jury was properly instructed on the State's burden of proof in Court's Instruction No. 4. All instructions are to be read together and construed as a whole. Cockrum v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 366, 234 N.E.2d 479; 8A I.L.E. Criminal Law § 581 (1971). We also note that Court's Instruction No. 7 instructed the jury to consider all instructions as a whole.
As a part of his argument concerning State's Instruction No. 5, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing Defendant's Tendered Instruction No. 9, which defined voluntary manslaughter. Because State's Instruction No. 5 correctly instructed on this lesser included offense, there was no error in refusing the Appellant's tendered instruction on the same subject matter. Fuller v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 376, 304 N.E.2d 305.
Finally, the Appellant urges error in the giving of State's Instruction No. 8, concerning evidence of flight, on the ground *746 that there was no evidence of flight in this case. The officer who apprehended the Appellant testified that he identified himself to the Appellant and pursued him when the Appellant subsequently ran. "[I]t has been our understanding that whether or not there had been a flight in avoidance or merely an innocent exit, should be determined from the circumstances surrounding the departure." Finger v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 524 at 527, 297 N.E.2d 819 at 821. The circumstances of this case permitted an inference of flight by the jury and it was properly instructed on the consideration of such evidence.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
All Justices concur.