Opinion ID: 1713224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err in admitting into evidence photographs of the victim and crime scene?

Text: ¶ 22. It is well settled in this State that the admissibility of photographs rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Westbrook v. State, 658 So.2d 847, 849 (Miss.1995) (citing Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542 (Miss.1990)); see also Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 31 (Miss. 1990); Boyd v. State, 523 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Miss.1988). Photographs that are gruesome or inflammatory or that lack an evidentiary purpose are inadmissible as evidence. McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151, 159 (Miss.1989). The discretion of the trial judge runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value. Westbrook, 658 So.2d at 849 (quoting Hart v. State, 637 So.2d 1329, 1335 (Miss.1994) (citations omitted)). ¶ 23. In his brief, Mangum makes only general allegations that the photographs have no probative value. Mangum offers no evidence or supporting proof to show that he was prejudiced in any manner by the admission of the photographs. ¶ 24. In Alford v. State, 508 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Miss.1987), this Court stated, [t]he decision to admit photographs depicting the crime scene are within the trial court's discretion. (citations omitted). In Brown v. State, 690 So.2d 276, 289 (Miss.1996), this Court stated: In Westbrook v. State, 658 So.2d 847, 849 (Miss.1995), this Court found that photographs of a victim have evidentiary value when they aid in describing the circumstances of the killing, Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266 (Miss.1978); describe the location of the body and cause of death, Ashley v. State, 423 So.2d 1311 (Miss.1982); or supplement or clarify witness testimony, Hughes v. State, 401 So.2d 1100 (Miss.1981). ¶ 25. In the case at bar, the trial judge admitted into evidence Exhibit 8 which depicts the interior of the package store and Exhibit 9 which depicts the victim lying in a pool of blood. The judge found the photographs to be more probative than prejudicial, stating that Exhibit 8 was relevant to show the crime scene and Exhibit 9 was the only photograph of the deceased victim. Under the standard set forth in Alford and Brown, the photographs were properly admitted into evidence. As such, this assignment of error is without merit.