Opinion ID: 2023505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: Defendant also contends that photographs of the decedent as he was found dead on the bed, and other photographs of the decedent taken just prior to autopsy, were cumulative and inflammatory and therefore improperly admitted. Photographs are admissible as evidence of anything to which a witness might himself be permitted to testify. Carroll v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 696, 338 N.E.2d 264. All of the photographs introduced at trial and here challenged were illustrative of the circumstances of the decedent's death and tended to prove the cause of death. Walker v. State, (1976) Ind., 349 N.E.2d 161; Baum v. State, supra . Although some of the photographs were repetitive and to some extent gruesome, their admission into evidence was not reversible error, since we cannot say that the relevancy of the photographs was outweighed by their potential to prejudice the defendant improperly. Bates v. State, (1977) Ind., 366 N.E.2d 659. The defendant, upon this issue, relies upon Kiefer v. State, (1958) 239 Ind. 103, 153 N.E.2d 899, and the following passages quoted from that case: `Photographs are admissible to show the body of the victim; to establish the corpus delicti; to show the position of the parties to the crime, the position of the victim's body, the condition of the victim, the wounds of the victim, and the cause of death; ....' 239 Ind. 112, 153 N.E.2d 902. Photographs which show the body of a deceased during and after the autopsy was performed have been held inadmissible on the theory that they serve no material purpose and their only value is to arouse the emotions of the jury. 239 Ind. at 114, 153 N.E.2d at 903. Here, however, of the two groups of photographs objected to by Defendant, the first group shows the deceased as he was found dead upon the bed. These photographs were relevant to show the position of the body after the crime. The second group of photographs show the nude body of the deceased on an autopsy table, after removal from the scene of the crime. One of this group was relevant to show the location of a gunshot wound to the deceased's head and the cause of death. Two others merely revealed his nude body in the morgue, and we do not perceive its purpose, unless to incite passion, which we condemn. However, there had not yet been any surgical incisions made, and they were not in any way subject to the objections for which we reversed in Kiefer. They were relatively innoxious and their potential to inflame was minimal. We find no reversible error, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.