Opinion ID: 1654062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Counsel failed to require the prosecution to lay the proper foundation for introduction of the highly prejudicial photograph of Davis's right arm.

Text: ¶ 54. The State introduced a photograph of Davis's arm through Kevin Fortenberry, an investigator for the Mississippi Highway Patrol, who had taken the photograph. Shaddock objected to admission of the photograph, stating: He don't know when that was done, or how it was done, or by whom it was done, or what object did it. These comments apparently referred to a scratch mark on Davis's arm. On direct appeal this Court rejected the allegation that the photograph was inadmissible because it was irrelevant. See Davis, 684 So.2d at 659. ¶ 55. Davis now argues that Shaddock was ineffective for failure to object to the photograph based on the State's failure to offer a proper predicate for the photograph, in other words, having Fortenberry testify that it fairly and accurately depicted Davis and his arm at the time it was taken, citing Wactor v. John H. Moon & Sons, Inc., 516 So.2d 1364, 1367 (Miss. 1987). Davis argues that had Shaddock objected on the ground of lack of predicate, the photograph would have been excluded. Had that objection been made, it is more likely that the trial judge would have at most required the State to ask the question at issue, at which time Fortenberry would have made the required answer. We find that Shaddock was not ineffective for failure to require the State to ask this one additional question.