Opinion ID: 865886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting a

Text: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICTIM’S BRAIN. ¶49. We review admission of photographs by the trial court for abuse of discretion. Chamberlin v. State, 989 So. 2d 320, 340 (Miss. 2008). This Court should consider whether the photographs were so gruesome or inflammatory as to lack any evidentiary purpose, thus rendering them inadmissible. McFee v. State, 511 So. 2d 130, 134-35 (Miss. 1987). “Some probative value is the only requirement needed in order to support a trial judge’s decision to admit photographs into evidence.” Chamberlin, 989 So. 2d at 340 (quoting Jones v. State, 920 So. 2d 465, 476-77 (Miss. 2006) (other citations omitted)). Although reversal for the admission of gruesome photographs is rare, “photographs which have no evidentiary purpose and which only arouse the emotions of a jury should not be admitted.” Barfield v. State, 22 So. 3d 1175, 1181 (Miss. 2009) (quoting Sharp v. State, 446 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Miss. 1984)). Photographs have evidentiary value when they: (1) aid in describing the circumstances of the killing; (2) describe the location of the body and cause of death; or (3) supplement or clarify witness testimony. Barfield, 22 So. 3d at 1181 (citing McIntosh v. State, 917 So. 2d 78, 83 (Miss. 2005)). ¶50. Richardson contends that the trial court erred in admitting a photograph of Evans’s brain. The photograph was taken during Evans’s autopsy and showed Evans’s brain after his scalp and part of his skull had been removed. The original photograph also contained an image of Evans’s open chest cavity. The trial court redacted the part of the photograph 24 depicting Evans’s chest cavity and admitted the rest of the photograph over Richardson’s objection. Richardson now argues that the photograph was unduly prejudicial and not probative. ¶51. Richardson cites McFee, 511 So. 2d at 135, and Hewlett v. State, 607 So. 2d 1097 (Miss. 1992). In McFee, this Court found that two photographs depicting a rape and murder victim were “relevant and material,” and thus admissible. McFee, 511 So. 2d at 135. Richardson cites Hewlett for the proposition that “photographs of a victim should not ordinarily be admitted into evidence where the killing is neither contradicted nor denied, and the corpus delicti and the identity of the deceased have been established.” Hewlett, 607 So. 2d at 1102. Richardson correctly quotes Hewlett; however, the opinion continues and states: “Photographs may nevertheless be admitted into evidence in criminal cases where they have probative value and where they are not so gruesome or used in a way as to be overly prejudicial or inflammatory.” Id. (citing Sudduth v. State, 562 So. 2d 67, 70 (Miss. 1990)). ¶52. In this case, the photograph was entered into evidence during Dr. Hayne’s testimony. Dr. Hayne, a pathologist, performed Evans’s autopsy and testified as to Evans’s injuries and cause of death. Dr. Hayne was describing the injuries to Evans’s brain when the State introduced the photograph. Richardson’s counsel objected, arguing that the photograph was not relevant and highly prejudicial. The trial court found that the portion of the photograph depicting Evans’s brain was relevant and, after performing a Rule 403 balancing test, that this portion of the photograph was admissible. See Miss. R. Evid. 403. Specifically, the trial court found that the photograph was relevant because Evans had died approximately three 25 and one half months after being hit in the head, and the photograph had helped to establish the age of Evans’s brain injury. ¶53. The photograph was used to supplement Dr. Hayne’s testimony regarding the injury to Evans’s brain. Dr. Hayne referred to the photograph while testifying that Evans’s brain injury had occurred months prior to his actual death. The photograph showed a brown discoloration on the brain, which Dr. Hayne testified forms four to five days after the actual injury and lasts for years after the injury. ¶54. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph of Evans’s brain. The trial judge weighed the probative value of the photograph against its prejudicial effect and even redacted a portion of the photograph that was not relevant. Because the photograph had probative value and was otherwise admissible under Rule 403, we find that this issue is without merit.