Opinion ID: 1140311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Lower Court Erred in Allowing Photographs of the Deceased's Body into Evidence.

Text: At trial, the court admitted the gruesome and shocking photographs of Darlene McNeal's nude and partially decomposed body into evidence. McNeal's position is that these photographs aroused the passion and prejudice of the jury. Having reviewed each of the photographs of Darlene McNeal taken at the scene of the crime, as well as those at the morgue, we are prone to agree that these photographs are so graphic as to arouse the passion of the jury. Without describing every morbid detail, it is sufficient to say that these are some of the most gruesome photographs ever presented to this Court. The state's position is that all of the photographs were needed in order to prove the corpus delicti. See Sharp v. State, 446 So.2d 1008 (Miss. 1984). However, we believe that the state could have shown the angle and entry of the bullet wound without the full-color, close-up view of the decomposed, maggot-infested skull. In McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss. 1987), we held: Previously, this Court has held that the admissibility of photographs rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will be upheld absent abuse of that discretion... . Yet, photographs which are gruesome or inflammatory and lack an evidentiary purpose are always inadmissible as evidence. Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 341 (Miss. 1985); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 449-60 (Miss. 1984). Id. at 135. We find that exhibits 5, 13 and 15 are gruesome and lack any evidentiary purpose. Although the state argues that these photographs are relevant in proving the corpus delicti, we believe that the probative value of the photographs is outweighed by their tendency to inflame and prejudice the jury. [3] See Kniep v. State, 525 So.2d 385 (Miss. 1988). By virtue of the authority set out in McFee and Rule 403, M.R.E., this Court holds that the trial court abused its discretion and was in error in allowing the introduction of these photographs into evidence. In arriving at the finding above, we do not presume to conclude that every gruesome photograph admitted into evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion; however, when presented with photographs such as the ones in this case, we caution the trial judge to carefully consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the admission of this particular type of evidence. More specifically, the trial court must consider: (1) whether the proof is absolute or in doubt as to identity of the guilty party, as well as, (2) whether the photographs are necessary evidence or simply a ploy on the part of the prosecutor to arouse the passion and prejudice of the jury.