Opinion ID: 1694843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence three photographs of the body of the deceased.

Text: ¶ 29. Drake argues that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence three photographs depicting Harwell's body. Exhibit 1 depicts Harwell's lifeless body lying in a small pool of blood at the edge of the highway in the position in which it was found at the scene of the crime. Exhibit 5 is a pre-autopsy photograph depicting the contact wound in front of the victim's left ear canal. Exhibit 6 is a pre-autopsy photograph depicting several superficial abrasions on the victim's nose and forehead. Drake asserts that the photographs have no probative value since the fact that Harwell was deceased and had been killed by a gunshot was undisputed. ¶ 30. The admissibility of photographs generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court; and, absent an abuse of discretion, the court's decision will be upheld on appeal. Jackson v. State, 784 So.2d 180, 183 (Miss.2001). A review of our case law indicates that the discretion of the trial judge runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value. Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782, 785 (Miss.1987). ¶ 31. The only case in which this Court has reversed based on the admission of gruesome photographs is McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151 (Miss.1989). The photographs at issue in McNeal depicted a fullcolor, close-up view of the [victim's] decomposed, maggot-infested skull. Id. at 159. This Court found the admission of these photographs violative of M.R.E. 403. The photographs in the case sub judice do not rise to this level of gruesomeness. Id. ¶ 32. Further, the photographs had probative value. The photographs revealed the position and location of Harwell's body on the edge of the highway, the peculiar arrangement of his clothing, the location of the contact bullet wound, and the nature of the trauma to his face and forehead. In light of the broad standard of admissibility permitted under this issue, we find that the trial court did not err in allowing the photographs into evidence. There is no merit to this assignment of error.