Opinion ID: 1980248
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: points four (4) and five (5).

Text: Specifications 4 and 5 of motion for new trial are best grouped together for consideration. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling the objections of the defendant to the introduction and admission into evidence State's exhibit #3, being a photograph of the interior of the grocery store where the killing occurred. This black and white photograph disclosed a large pool of the victim's blood on the floor. This exhibit was shown and passed among the jury for viewing and examination. The appellant cites Kiefer v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 103, 114, 153 N.E.2d 899 to support his contention. This court in Hawkins v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 116, 127, 37 N.E.2d 79 stated: The general rule as to the admission of photographs in criminal cases is stated as follows: `A photograph, proved to be a true representation of the person, place, or thing which it purports to represent, is competent evidence of anything, of which it is competent and relevent for a witness to give a verbal description.' 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 852, p. 51. Dean Wigmore states the rule: `A photograph, like a map or diagram, is a witness' pictured expression of the data observed by him and therein communicated to the tribunal more accurately than by words. Its use for this purpose is sanctioned beyond question.' 3 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd ed.) § 792, p. 178. Cited under this text are numerous criminal cases holding proper the admission of photographs picturing the scene of the crime, objects used in its commission, the body of the victim and other details enabling the jury to visualize  what actually occurred. Their relevancy, it seems to us, is determined by the inquiry as to whether or not a witness would be permitted to describe the objects photographed. `... ordinarily whatever the jury may learn through the ear from descriptions given by witnesses they may learn directly through the eye from the objects described.' State v. Moore (1909), 80 Kan. 232, 237, 102 p. 475, 477. The same rules applicable to objects connected with the crime apply to photographs of such objects. 3 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd ed.) § 792, p. 185. ... We see no reason, therefore, why a witness may not describe in words what he saw and also supplement his testimony with photographs, which frequently give the jury a more accurate picture than the verbal description. Exhibit #3 shows where the deceased was lying after his struggle with the defendant as well as the interior of the New Gay Way Market. The pictorial depiction was supported by the testimony of Ronald Hewitt upon direct examination. Furthermore, the Keifer case, relied on by the appellant, has not been regarded by this court as a persuasive precedent. The Kiefer case is hemmed in and severely limited by the cases before and after it and has very little meaning, if any, as a precedent. Wilson v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 680, 685, 221 N.E.2d 347 We therefore hold the trial court committed no error in the admission of state's exhibit #3 in evidence, and in overruling specification #4 of appellant's motion for new trial. We now direct our attention to specification #5, which asserted an error of law in trial court's overruling of the appellant's objection to the admission into evidence of exhibits #8 and #9, said exhibits being color photographs of part of the nude body of the victim, Amiel Lewis Culver, taken in the hospital approximately two hours after the killing. Said exhibits depicted the place of entrance of the gunshot wound  in the throat and the exit of the gunshot wound in the back together with some discoloration about the neck. The appellant objected to the introduction of said exhibits upon the grounds that the photographs showed the body had been probed by some kind of instrument inserted into the gunshot wound and therefore that the body was not in the same condition as it was at the time of the death, and for the further reason that the exhibits are not relevant or material to the issues involved in the trial. The appellant contends that this was prejudicial to the defendant and inflamed the jury, again citing Kiefer v. State, supra . The rule as stated in 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, 12th ed., § 687, at pages 658-659 is: Photographs are admissible to show the body of the victim; to establish the corpus delicti; ... the condition of the victim, the wounds of the victim, and the cause of death; ... Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 5th ed., § 117, states that photographs which go to illustrate any fact or shed light on an issue, or are relevant to describe person, place or thing involved, are admissible. (p. 213) They are not inadmissible merely because shocking, horrible or tending to arouse passion or prejudice. (p. 222) A photograph serving only, or primarily, to arouse passion or prejudice, will not be received, although the fact that it is not essential to the state's case will not necessarily exclude it. (p. 80, 1968 Supp.) Relevant to said exhibits Edward Saulsberry, deputy coroner of Vanderburgh County, testified that the photographs were true and correct representations both front and back as shown by said exhibits number 8 indicating the entrance wound and number 9 representing the exit wound in the lower back of Amiel Lewis Culver. He also testified the discoloration or marks about the neck were the result of a tracheaectomy  performed to help this man breathe before he died. Presumably, the opening for the tracheaectomy was in the identical location of the entrance of the gunshot wound. The appellant attempts to equate this photograph with the photograph discussed in Kiefer v. State, supra . We find there is little support for this position, for in the Kiefer photograph it showed the hands of the surgeon in the body of the victim while performing an autopsy. We therefore hold that the trial court committed no reversible error in admitting state's exhibits number 8 and 9 in the evidence in the case at bar; therefore, specification #5 of the appellant's motion for new trial is without merit, and the trial court committed no error in overruling the same.