Opinion ID: 1981028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission of Coroner's Videotape

Text: Before the presentation of evidence, the parties discussed admissibility of a videotape of the coroner's examination of the victim's body at the crime scene. Isaacs did not object to the video being shown, but he urged that it be stopped at the point where the coroner turned the body over and examined the injuries to the victim's head, neck and arms. The State argued that since Isaacs was claiming that some of the injuries were the result of an accident and self-defense, it was important for the jury to see the injuries that were visible. The trial judge reviewed the tape and took the question under advisement until he could see how the evidence developed. When it came time to rule on admissibility, the judge explained that the still photographs did not depict the facial wounds as well as the videotape, partly because the videotape was able to zoom in and [show] the coloration much better. In light of appellant's claims of accident and self-defense, the trial judge concluded that it was necessary for the jury to view the entire video. On appeal, Isaacs argues that it was prejudicial error to submit the entire videotape to the jury. Admission of photographs and videotapes lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Green v. State (1992), Ind., 587 N.E.2d 1314. The fact that a photograph or videotape may depict gruesome details of a crime is not a sufficient basis for excluding it. Elliott v. State (1994), Ind., 630 N.E.2d 202 at 204. The question is whether its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. Mitchell v. State (1990), Ind., 557 N.E.2d 660-665. In light of Isaacs' claims of accident and self-defense, it was reasonable for the trial judge to conclude the videotape assisted the jury in assessing the nature and extent of the victim's injuries, and in ascertaining whether they were deliberate or the result of accident. Moreover, the videotape was relevant because it illustrated the testimony of both the pathologist and the coroner. The tape was not unduly gruesome, nor was its prejudicial impact excessive compared to its probative value. We conclude the court exercised appropriate discretion in admitting the entire videotape.