Opinion ID: 1781968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: introduction of inflammatory photographs of the victim without evidentiary purpose or probative value violated foster's rights under mississippi law and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

Text: Foster appeals the admissibility of three photos of the victim's body: one, a representation of Shelton's chest and head as found by police at the scene; two, a more distant shot of the same portion of the body which includes a sizable accumulation of blood and other body fluids on the floor of the store; and finally a photo of a cut on Shelton's left forearm. Foster claims the photos were [g]ruesome, inflammatory photographs that lack an evidentiary purpose and, as such, were not admissible, citing McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151 (Miss. 1989). Foster claims that even if the photos were relevant, their prejudicial value outweighed their probative value. Id., citing Kniep v. State, 525 So.2d 385, 388 (Miss. 1988). In McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d at 159, this Court reversed a conviction for murder after the trial court admitted color prints of a close-up, decomposed and maggot-infested skull of the victim. The State claimed that the photos were necessary to prove the corpus delicti. Id. This Court responded that the probative value of the photos' was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. Id. While the photos of the corpse in the instant case  as would be the photos of any corpse  may be difficult to view, they do not reach the inflammatory effect of a McNeal photo. Similarly, Foster alleges the photos were inadmissible under Kniep v. State, 525 So.2d 385, 388 (Miss. 1988). In Kniep, photos of the decedent taken at the hospital came into evidence as there was an issue of fact for the jury as to whether the cause of death was exsanguination or alcohol poisoning. Id. The opinion is silent as to the details of the photos other than to say they depicted surface injuries. Id. In the case sub judice, Exhibit 25 showed wounds to the victim's face, and Exhibit 26 showed the victim's glasses on the floor. The trial court's ruling inter alia, found the photographs were not unduly prejudicial and that they are supported by the evidence and testimony of the witnesses who have testified so far, and are necessary to give a fair rendition of the wounds, position and location.... Without more detail, we can neither analogize nor discriminate the photos in the instant case from those tendered to the jury in Kniep. This Court, on review of the photos, finds that they neither match nor exceed the McNeal standard for prejudicial effect. The photographs were already in evidence at the guilt phase and were properly readmitted into evidence at the sentencing phase of the trial. We find no merit to this assignment of error by Foster.