Opinion ID: 1703499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trass and Tollivar)

Text: In brief, both defendants contend that S-9, a color photograph of the deceased's body, is inadmissible. They argue that the State introduced it solely for inflammatory effect as it lacked any evidentiary value. A defendant must make a contemporaneous objection to an irregularity or error made at trial and state the grounds therefor in order to avail himself of it on appeal. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 841. In a joint trial when one defendant objects, the law presumes that all defendants join in the objection unless the contrary appears. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 842. When the State introduced S-9, defendant Tollivar's counsel said: I think [defendant Trass's attorney] has an objection. I have no objection to the evidence. [Tr. 60] Defendant Trass's counsel then objected. As Tollivar elected to interpose no objection to the admission of S-9, Articles 841 and 842 prohibit him from urging its inadmissibility on appeal. Trass's objection must, of course, be considered. S-9 depicts the murder victim's head and chest on a table at the morgue. His face is bloody, and his head lies on a blood stained sheet. There is a clean bullet wound on his chest. To be admissible, the probative value of an allegedly gruesome photograph must outweigh its prejudicial effect upon the jury. State v. Jones, La., 345 So.2d 1157 (1977); State v. Redwine, La., 337 So.2d 1041 (1976); State v. Smith, La., 327 So.2d 355 (1976). Generally, photographs of a homicide victim's body which show the fatal wound are relevant to prove the death, to corroborate other evidence of the cause of death, to establish the location, severity, and number of wounds, and to prove the identity of the victim. State v. Williams, La., 343 So.2d 1026 (1977); State v. Cooper, La., 334 So.2d 211 (1976); State v. Beach, La., 320 So.2d 142 (1975). We have examined the photograph of the victim in the instant case. Although unpleasant, the photograph is not gruesome. In any event, it is not so gruesome as to `overwhelm reason' and cause a jury to lose sight of the need for the prosecutor to establish with sufficient independent evidence the guilt of the accused. State v. Smith, supra. The photograph established the identity of the victim. It also substantiated the coroner's testimony concerning the cause of death, i. e., gunshot wounds, and his testimony concerning the location of the entry wound. We conclude that the photograph's probative value outweighs any possible prejudice it may have created in the jury's mind. See State v. Williams, supra; State v. Beach, supra. Therefore, the trial judge properly admitted it into evidence. These assignments of error are without merit.