Opinion ID: 1706565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: did the trial court err in allowing photographs of the victim into evidence during the guilt phase of trial?

Text: Four photographs of Joe Clardy's body taken at the scene of the crime were admitted into evidence. The first photograph depicted the body as it was found. It was admitted without objection. The next three, offered as one exhibit, illustrated the three gunshot wounds. Willie objected stating that only one of the three should be allowed because that one plus the one already in evidence would be sufficient, and the introduction of more than one more would serve only to inflame the passion and emotions of the jury. Willie's objection was overruled. On appeal, Willie has raised an additional objection  that the photographs were not probative at the guilt phase because neither the cause of death, nor the fact that Joe Clardy was shot three times was disputed. Willie made no objection at trial to the admission of two of the four photographs, and therefore has waived his objection on appeal as to those two. Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 484 (Miss. 1988). Willie, also, did not object at trial to the admission of the photographs on the basis that they had no probative value, so he is procedurally barred from raising this additional basis on appeal. Stevens v. State, 458 So.2d 726, 730 (Miss. 1984). Our review is limited to whether the two photographs were used in such a way that they inflamed the passions of the jury. Generally, the admissibility of photographs rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 31 (Miss. 1990). [P]hotographs of bodies may be admitted into evidence where they have probative value, and where they are not so gruesome as to be overly prejudicial and inflammatory. Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928, 934 (Miss. 1986) (cites omitted); Simpson v. State, 497 So.2d 424, 432 (Miss. 1986). In this case the photographs were not gruesome. They depicted the body as it was found and the gunshot wounds, but they were not particularly bloody or graphic. At most they were cumulative or repetitive. Despite not being particularly gory or gross, the trial judge should not have allowed the photographs into evidence if they were cumulative or repetitive. Rule 403, M.R.E.; see also, Simpson, 497 So.2d at 432. Assuming such an error, we find the error harmless and one not requiring reversal because the photographs were not particularly gory and did not have a highly inflammatory effect on the jury. Stringer, 500 So.2d at 934; Simpson, 497 So.2d at 432; see also, Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 341 (Miss. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1164, 106 S.Ct. 2291, 90 L.Ed.2d 732 (1986) (reversal for gruesome and/or cumulative photographs is rare); Sharp v. State, 446 So.2d 1008, 1009 (Miss. 1984), vacated on other grounds, 930 F.2d 450 (5th Cir.1991) ([w]here the evidence weighs so heavily against the appellant and where the record shows no substantial prejudice [] by admission of the photographs, such admission by the trial court [is] not reversible error).