Opinion ID: 1789377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission of Gruesome Photograph

Text: In Philmore's third claim on appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in admitting a single photograph of the victim's body after a week of decomposition that depicted a gunshot wound to her forehead because the photograph was more prejudicial than probative. Furthermore, Philmore contends that the State failed to demonstrate any real necessity in utilizing the photograph because Dr. Hobin, the medical expert who conducted the autopsy of Perron, stated that he would not be inhibited in his expert testimony if the photograph was cropped below the forehead. This Court has held that [t]he test for admissibility of photographic evidence is relevancy rather than necessity. Pope v. State, 679 So.2d 710, 713 (Fla. 1996). Where photographs are relevant, the trial court must determine whether the gruesomeness of the portrayal is so inflammatory as to create an undue prejudice in the minds of the jury and [distract] them from a fair and unimpassioned consideration of the evidence. Czubak v. State, 570 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990). Admission of photographic evidence of a murder victim is within the trial court's sound discretion and is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. See Ruiz v. State, 743 So.2d 1, 8 (Fla.1999); Gudinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953, 963 (Fla.1997). Nonetheless, this Court has caution[ed] trial judges to scrutinize such evidence carefully for prejudicial effect, particularly when less graphic photos are available to illustrate the same point. Marshall v. State, 604 So.2d 799, 804 (Fla.1992); see also Almeida v. State, 748 So.2d 922, 929 (Fla.1999) (explaining that the relevancy standard by no means constitutes a carte blanche for the admission of gruesome photos). Where the trial court has abused its discretion in admitting photographs, this Court uses a harmless error analysis. See Almeida, 748 So.2d at 930; Duncan v. State, 619 So.2d 279, 282 (Fla. 1993); see generally State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). During the guilt phase, this Court has upheld the admission of photographs to explain a medical examiner's testimony, to show the manner of death, the location of wounds, and the identity of the victim. Larkins v. State, 655 So.2d 95, 98 (Fla. 1995) (finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a photograph that was relevant to aiding the medical examiner to explain the cause of death, as well as how and where the victim died). See also Pope, 679 So.2d at 713-14 (autopsy photographs were relevant to illustrate the medical examiner's testimony and the injuries he noted); Jackson v. State, 545 So.2d 260, 265 (Fla.1989) (photographs of victims' charred remains were admissible because they were relevant to prove identity and the circumstances surrounding the murders and to corroborate the medical examiner's testimony); Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla.1983) (nine autopsy photographs were admissible because they were relevant to show identity, the nature and extent of the victims' injuries, the manner of death, the nature and force of the violence used, and premeditation). Moreover, this Court has considered the trial court's preliminary screening as a factor weighing in favor of admissibility. See Gudinas, 693 So.2d at 963 (finding no abuse of discretion in admitting six slides of the victim's body where the slides were preliminarily screened by the trial court, and ... were relevant and necessary to the expert's testimony). In this case, Dr. Hobin stated during voir dire questioning that the use of the photograph would be helpful in explaining the entrance wound, the angle of the entrance wound, and what the bullet did after it entered Perron's head. Dr. Hobin explained that the photograph would be helpful because, when he describes the changes caused by the bullet, the description is very abstract to a person not familiar with this type of injury. Dr. Hobin also stated that the photograph, unlike the x-rays, would assist him in demonstratively showing what the entry wound looked like through the skin, and that an average individual can relate in a somewhat more meaningful way with the photographic demonstration. Furthermore, Dr. Hobin testified before the jury that Perron died from a single gunshot injury, the gunshot entrance wound was located in the upper, middle part of Perron's forehead, and the wound was not a contact wound. Dr. Hobin also testified to the trajectory of the bullet and that Perron would have been immediately unconscious after the gunshot, but that she technically may have survived a little longer without perception or sensation. Moreover, the State argues that the only disputed issue in this case is premeditation, and the location of the bullet hole as reflected in the photograph is relevant to demonstrate that Philmore acted in a premeditated manner in shooting the victim. Therefore, we conclude that the photograph is relevant both for showing the nature and extent of the bullet wound, and for demonstrating premeditation. Furthermore, the trial court preliminarily screened the photograph and made specific findings concerning the photograph's relevancy and probative value. Additionally, this was the only photograph depicting the victim's body admitted into evidence. Thus, to the extent that the nature of the photograph was prejudicial, the prejudicial effect does not outweigh the photograph's probative value. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph.