Opinion ID: 1656419
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs and two day in the life videos.

Text: ¶ 20. The admission of photographs and motion pictures is a matter for the sound discretion of the trial court, and that court is afforded wide latitude in exercising this discretion. Niles v. Sanders, 218 So.2d 428, 432 (Miss.1969); Marr v. Nichols, 208 So.2d 770, 773 (Miss.1968). See also Butler v. Chrestman, 264 So.2d 812, 816 (Miss.1972). ¶ 21. Day-in-the-life videos are used in personal injury and medical malpractice cases to demonstrate to the jury the daily activities of the plaintiff, specific limitations that the plaintiff encounters, or the plaintiff's physical treatment or therapy. Jane A. Kalinski, Jurors at the Movies: Day-in-the-Life Videos as Effective Evidentiary Tool or Unfairly Prejudicial Device?, 27 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 789, 796 (1993). In its purest form, a D[ay-]I[n-the-]L[ife] video will begin as the injured party awakens and continues until he/she has gone to sleep. In actuality, a D[ay-]I[n-the-]L [ife] video presented in court consists of approximately fifteen to twenty minutes of edited tape which portrays limited segments of daily activities. J. Ric Gass, Defending against Day In the Life Videos, 432 PLI/Lit 143, 148 (1992). ¶ 22. In Butler, an 8 mm movie film which depicted an agonizing period during (the plaintiff's) recovery was viewed by the jury as evidence of her pain and suffering. This Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that: Where the only purpose of photographs is to influence and prejudice the jury they should be excluded, but where they visualize the injury at a stage subsequent to the accident, they may not be excluded solely because they may contain emotional overtones. Jensen v. South Adams County Water and Sanitation District, 149 Colo. 102, 368 P.2d 209 (1962), and Godvig v. Lopez, 185 Or. 301, 202 P.2d 935 (1949). Caution again is stated to trial judges to preview such evidence to determine its probative value as against its prejudicial effects upon a jury. Butler, 264 So.2d at 816 (emphasis added). In Trapp v. Cayson, 471 So.2d 375, 380 (Miss.1985), after determining the video had probative value and would be of assistance to the jury, the trial judge allowed a one hour and twenty minute video to be viewed by the jury. The film depicted various activities of Cayson, such as waking up and moving from bed to wheelchair, attaching a catheter apparatus for urination, bowel evacuation procedures in the bathroom, taking a shower, dressing, eating breakfast, brushing teeth and shaving, exercising in a `stand-up', opening mail with his teeth, moving about the house and kitchen, driving a van, emptying a legon of urine, getting undressed and going to bed. The narration of the film by Cayson consisted of explaining what he was doing in the film. Id. at 381. In Jesco, Inc. v. Shannon, 451 So.2d 694 (Miss.1984), the jury was allowed to watch a film of normal burn treatment procedures which was substantially the same treatment received by Shannon. This Court upheld the trial court's ruling finding no abuse of discretion. Id. at 702. ¶ 23. Courts of other jurisdictions have dealt with the issue of the prejudicial nature of day-in-the-life videos and have frequently admitted them into evidence. In Grimes v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 73 F.R.D. 607 (D.Alaska 1977), Thomas I. Grimes, who was injured in an industrial accident, attempted to admit a film depicting himself performing several daily activities and conducting clinical tests. The film also contained scenes of Grimes at home with his daughter and quadriplegic brother, who were not parties to the lawsuit. Employers Mutual objected to the admissibility of the tape on several grounds including the tape was irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and cumulative. The court held: The scenes of the plaintiff with his daughter and with his quadriplegic brother serve little purpose other than to create sympathy for the plaintiff. The prejudicial effect of these scenes outweighs the probative value of the evidence. In contrast, the other scenes of the plaintiff performing daily functions and the film of the plaintiff performing clinical tests have a probative value greater than any prejudice which might result. The films illustrate better than words, the impact the injury had on the plaintiff's life in terms of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. Id. at 610 (emphasis added). ¶ 24. In Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 528 (Cal.Ct.App.1993), the trial court found that the day-in-the-life video sought to be introduced by Jones was relevant and material to Jones's medical treatment and to an understanding of her daily life. The court of appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court holding: The videotape was relevant on the issue of damages. The videotape was highly probative of the extent of Ms. Jones's injuries and graphically demonstrated her need for constant medical attention in a manner oral testimony could not convey. It also had substantial probative value on the extent of Ms. Jones's pain and suffering and was therefore helpful to the jury in calculating appropriate damages. Id. at 442, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 528. ¶ 25. In Bannister v. Town of Noble, Okl. 812 F.2d 1265 (10th Cir.1987), Bannister, who was rendered a paraplegic due to injuries sustained in an automobile accident, introduced a day-in-the-life video to show how he had adapted to his injury and how his paraplegia had affected his everyday life. In its analysis concerning the admissibility of the videotape, the court outlined a number of issues a trial judge should consider prior to admitting such a film. ¶ 26. The court first stated the day-in-the-life video must fairly represent[] the facts with respect to the impact of the injuries on the plaintiff's day-to-day activities. Id. at 1269 (citing Bolstridge v. Cent. Me. Power Co., 621 F.Supp. 1202, 1203 (D.Me.1985)). A typical day-in-the-life video would not depict a victim performing improbable tasks. Bannister, 812 F.2d at 1269. In order for the video to have the least amount of prejudicial value, the video must portray ordinary, day-to-day situations. Id. ¶ 27. Secondly, the court found that if `a plaintiff is aware of being videotaped for [the purpose of litigation, it] is likely to cause self-serving behavior, consciously or otherwise.' Id. (quoting Bolstridge, 621 F.Supp. at 1203 (citing Haley v. Byers Transp. Co., 414 S.W.2d 777, 780 (Mo.1967))). Although this is inevitable to some extent, the court cautioned against the admission of such evidence. Bannister, 812 F.2d at 1269. ¶ 28. Next, the court determined that a jury will better remember, and thus give greater weight to, evidence presented in a film as opposed to more conventionally elicited testimony. Id. The court again cautioned other courts in recognizing this legitimate concern when determining the prejudicial effect of a day-in-the-life video. Id. ¶ 29. Finally, the court stated that effective cross-examination is lost with day-in-the-life videos. Id. This concern could be lessened if the victim could be cross-examined at trial regarding the film; however, the possibility that a film will be prejudicial is significantly increased when the subject of that film can not be cross-examined at trial. Id. at 1269-70. ¶ 30. The above-cited cases where this Court and courts in other jurisdictions affirmed the admissibility of day-in-the-life videos are all similar in that they truly depicted scenes from a day in the life of the victim. The videos allowed the trier of fact to see how the victim's life had been changed by their injuries. However, due to their extreme prejudicial nature, the majority of the photographs and scenes from the videos admitted by the trial court in the case sub judice fall in the same category of those cases reversed and remanded for new trials. ¶ 31. Of course, in finding error in the admissibility of certain photographs and videos in today's case, we also filter these evidentiary issues through Miss. R. Evid. 403 which states: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. We have held that the admission of evidence is well within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to reversal on appeal only if there be an abuse of that discretion. Ill. Cent. R.R. v. Gandy, 750 So.2d 527, 531 (Miss.1999) (citing Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. Fires, 693 So.2d 917, 920 (Miss.1997); Terrain Enters., Inc. v. Mockbee, 654 So.2d 1122, 1128 (Miss.1995)). Prior to the judicial enactment of our Mississippi Rules of Evidence, which took effect on January 1, 1986, we relied on our numerous cases to determine the admissibility of evidence. The resulting codification still left intact the long-standing abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of a trial court's decision concerning the admissibility of evidence. ¶ 32. Demonstrative evidence has evolved from still photographs, to films, color slides, videotapes, and computer-generated demonstrations. However, the standard is the same. The trial judge must exercise sound discretion in determining whether the proffered evidence is relevant under Miss. R. Evid. 401 and even if relevant, whether such relevant evidence is admissible applying the Miss. R. Evid. 403 criteria. Our learned trial judges are the gatekeepers, not only in determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Miss. R. Evid. 702, but also in fairly determining the admissibility of all proffered evidence both under the Mississippi Rules of Evidence and the subsequent case law interpreting these Rules. ¶ 33. In the present case, Michelle was allowed to introduce two day-in-the-life videos. The first video, which was shown during Michelle's testimony, depicts still wedding pictures and pictures of Taylor's stepson, who is not a party to this lawsuit, at a graduation ceremony and a ball game. While the wedding pictures may be admissible to show Taylor as he was before his injury, the proper place for these pictures is not in a day in the life video of Taylor Moore. These wedding pictures were also admitted in picture form. As stated in Grimes, the scenes of Taylor's stepson, who is not a party to the lawsuit, serve no other purpose than to elicit sympathy from the jury. These scenes are also not relevant to a day in the in the life of Taylor Moore and should be deleted from the video. However, the video also depicts Taylor engaged in physical therapy, Taylor being washed, clothed and fed by staff, and Taylor being visited by his wife and newborn son. These are the typical scenes which are found, and which should be found in day-in-the-life videos. If the wedding pictures and the pictures featuring Taylor's stepson were deleted, this video would be admissible. ¶ 34. The second video again shows Taylor in the rehabilitation center. However, in this video, Taylor's mother, who is also not a party to this lawsuit, is heard sobbing over her son Momma loves you, Momma loves you. This scene is highly prejudicial. Because the second video is cumulative of the first and contains highly prejudicial scenes, it should have been excluded by the trial judge. ¶ 35. Reality reveals to us that, unfortunately, some day-in-the-life videos are no longer being used for their proper purposes but instead, are being introduced solely for the purpose of eliciting sympathy from the jury. While we admittedly cannot begin to fully comprehend the immense pain and suffering these families have had to endure, the proper purpose of the day-in-the-life video is to show an actual day in the life of the victim. By introducing the videos, Michelle attempted to show such scenes but then strayed from the true purpose by incorporating additional material which is neither relevant nor probative. ¶ 36. While the trial court erred by admitting the two videos, we must also address the cumulative nature of the photographs which were admitted. In addition to the two day-in-the-life videos, Michelle was also allowed to introduce approximately seventy-five photographs. Among these photographs were photographs depicting Taylor in high school and identifying his high school activities, thirty-six photographs from Taylor and Michelle's wedding, fourteen miscellaneous family pictures, two photographs of Michelle in the hospital prior to giving birth, six photographs from Michelle's baby shower, which leaves only ten photographs of Taylor in the rehabilitation center. These ten photographs were still shots from the day-in-the-life videos. ¶ 37. While we understand and appreciate the necessity of showing Taylor Moore as he was before his accident and the necessity in proving damages in a wrongful death suit in order for damages to be awarded, courts must take caution in admitting such a large number of photographs. We conclude that the thirty-six pictures admitted of the Moores' wedding are cumulative. The high school photographs are too remote in time from the events giving rise to the instant case to have probative value. Although Michelle is required to prove damages, in this case loss of consortium, the photographs of Mrs. Moore at her baby shower and in the hospital prior to giving birth are more prejudicial than probative. Therefore, upon remand, the first video should be admitted if the proper edits are made. The second video will not be admitted as it is cumulative of the first video and highly prejudicial. Also with regards to the pictures, the high school pictures are inadmissible as are the baby shower pictures. As previously introduced, the wedding album is cumulative and should not be admitted.