Opinion ID: 1784340
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue: Whether a Videotape and Wash Cloth Were Too Prejudicial to Admit into Evidence?

Text: The State proposed to introduce into evidence a videotape of the exhumation of Krystal's body from the site where Holland buried it and a foul-smelling wash cloth which the police found near the burial site.

The video shows: (1) the road leading to the burial site, (2) the area surrounding the site, and (3) the exhumation. Holland challenges the introduction of the video because it doesn't tend to prove [his] guilt ... in any way, and it would tend to inflame the jury because of the gruesome nature of the film. Holland adds: There is nothing there that could not or has not been testified to and has not been supported by still photo[s]. (Photos of the grave site were admitted into evidence.) In sum, Holland contends that any probative value the video might have would be outweighed by the prejudicial effect. Id. at 1694; see also Appellant's Brief at 48. At trial, the State countered that the video's admissibility was necessary: (1) to show the landscape of the burial site about which two witnesses had testified; (2) to show that Krystal's body was wrapped in a sheet which was similar to Holland's bed linen; and (3) to show more than that which the still photos show. Vol. X, at 1699-1700 & 1723. And on appeal, the State provides several more reasons for admitting the video: (1) it depicted the scene where the body was found and those matters found along side the body, (2) it shows the physical condition of the burial scene and the ability of a truck to turn in that area, (3) it added to the jury's understanding of what occurred at the site and completed the prosecution's picture of the events of those early morning hours, (4) it corroborate[d] the condition of the body of the victim and the testimony of the officers who unearthed the body, and (5) it tie[d] evidence found at the grave site to evidence found at appellant's home. Appellant's Brief at 35. The trial judge allowed the State to introduce the video but on the condition that the audio be turned off. He ordered the elimination of audio to prevent the jury from hearing prejudicial comments which may have been made during the taping. Vol. X, at 1725.
Both parties support their contentions regarding admissibility of the gruesome video by citing analogous law governing admissibility of gruesome, inflammatory photos. See Appellant's Brief at 49-50; Appellee's Brief at 34. In Williams v. State, Justice Sullivan summarized this law: [G]enerally, the admissibility of photo[s] is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and the admission is proper, so long as their introduction serves some useful evidentiary purpose... . [Accordingly, w]e have repeatedly admitted photo[s] of every description with the explanation that some probative value is present... . Abuse of discretion is sometimes explained to be admission of photo[s] when a killing is not contradicted or denied or the corpus delicti and the identity of the deceased have been established... . A review of our case law indicates that the discretion of the trial judge runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value. At this point ..., no meaningful limits exist in these so-called balance of probative/prejudicial effect of photo[s] test. 544 So.2d 782, 785 (Miss. 1987) (citations omitted). A few years later, this Court finally established a line of demarcation. In McNeal v. State, gruesome photos depicting a maggot-infested body were deemed devoid of any evidentiary purpose. The Court held: [W]e believe that the probative value of the photos is outweighed by their tendency to inflame and prejudice the jury; therefore, the trial [judge] abused [his] discretion ... in allowing the[ir] introduction. 551 So.2d 151, 159 (Miss. 1989) (citing MISS.R.EVID. 403 [12] ). At that point, the Court delineated a guideline for future cases: When deciding on the admissibility of gruesome photos, trial judges must consider: (1) whether the proof is absolute or in doubt as to identity of the guilty party, [and] (2) whether the photos are necessary evidence or simply a ploy on the part of the prosecutor to arouse the passion and prejudice of the jury. Id.
This Court must decide whether the probative value, if any, of admitting the video outweighed any prejudicial effect. In other words, did the trial judge abuse his discretion by admitting the video? As discussed, the State contended that the video should be deemed admissible for various reasons. In short, the State explains that the video reveals more than that which is revealed through the photographic evidence and that the video provides substantiation for several witnesses' testimony regarding the burial site. The State's contention, which lacks specificity, is unpersuasive. The video does not reveal more than that which is revealed through the photos; indeed, this Court holds the video was of no probative value to the State's case. This does not mean, however, that the video was prejudicial or inadmissible. In view of the video's content as well as all the horrific and overwhelming evidence presented in this case, this Court holds that the video was not prejudicial. In sum, the video should not have been admitted on grounds of repetition, redundancy and cumulativeness. Hansen v. State, No. 87-DP-0823, slip op. at 49, 1991 WL 280025, []29 (Miss. December 18, 1991). However, in view of a lack of prejudicial effect, the video's erroneous admission does not warrant reversal. Id.
Holland objected to the introduction of a white wash cloth not only because of its appearance, but because of the ... odor coming from the article. Holland explains that the odor is so strong and pungent that it would [`adversely'] effect [ sic ] the jury; that is, it's probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. The State countered by simply stating that: [It's an item] found in the grave site with the victim [and is p]robative for many reasons, including just the fact that it is another item found in her grave site. The trial judge admitted the cloth after concurring in the State's rationale. The law relevant to admissibility of the video is also relevant to the disposition of whether the wash cloth should have been admitted. In other words, this Court must determine whether the trial judge abused his discretion in deciding that the probative value, if any, of the smelly, stained cloth outweighed its tendency, if any, to inflame and prejudice the jury. The State contends that it was probative for many reasons; the State declares that it was found at the grave site. The cloth would have been relevant had it been identified as belonging to Holland or as deriving from Holland's home. Absent a sufficient connection between the cloth and Holland and/or the crime, the judge should have excluded it. To conclude otherwise would mean admitting anything found at the scene of a crime  notwithstanding its irrelevance. All this aside, this Court deems the error harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence presented in this case. Moreover, any prejudicial effect of admitting the cloth dims in view of the numerous items found at the grave site which were admitted without challenge. These items include a sample of soil that covered the victim in the grave site, a pair of white corduroy shorts, a pair of panties, a black towel, a bag of concrete, a woman's black purse, a pair of white rubber gloves, a brown towel, a lace bra, white shoes, notes from a note-pad, and make-up. The State also introduced a bloody pillow case, which police investigators found at the grave site; Holland challenged the admissibility of this item on the ground that it contained an excessive amount of blood stain. [13] The trial judge overruled the objection, and Holland did not challenge this decision on appeal. In sum, this Court concludes that admitting the cloth constituted an erroneous, albeit harmless, decision.