Opinion ID: 1936097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting autopsy photographs of the victims to more graphically depict injuries and which had a prejudicial effect on the jury outweighing their probative value

Text: Jackson asserts that the trial court erred by allowing the introduction of photographs taken at the morgue of the slain children, which were introduced during the testimony of pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne to illustrate the severity of the children's wounds and the pain and suffering associated with them. We find no merit, however, to his contention that the evidence was unnecessary, repetitious or inflammatory to jurors. The admission of photographs is within the discretion of the trial judge and his decision will be upheld absent an abuse of that discretion. Hart v. State, 637 So.2d 1329, 1335-1336 (Miss. 1994); Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298, 303 (Miss. 1993). However, [a]utopsy photographs are admissible only if they possess probative value. Noe, 616 So.2d at 303; McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151, 159 (Miss. 1989). Further, they must not be so gruesome or used in such a way as to be overly inflammatory or prejudicial. Hurns v. State, 616 So.2d 313, 319 (Miss. 1993); Sudduth v. State, 562 So.2d 67, 70 (Miss. 1990). Indiscriminate use of autopsy photographs showing where a medical technician or pathologist has used the tools of his trade to puncture, sever, dissect and otherwise traumatize body parts is discouraged. Noe, 616 So.2d at 303. The six 4 X 6 color photographs in question depict the fatal stab wounds to the neck and face of Dominique Jackson, the neck of Shunterica Jackson, the neck of Andrew [Jackson] Kuyoro and the chest of Antonio Jackson. Taken after the bodies had been cleaned up but before the autopsies were performed, they are neither gruesome nor inflammatory. They show only the immediate areas of the wounds. Dr. Hayne used the photographs in conjunction with styrofoam head models to demonstrate the location and extent of the wounds as well as the nature and extent of the pain and suffering experienced by the victims before they died. We have found such pictures to have probative value in showing the location and number of wounds, the extent of the force or violence involved and the defendant's state of mind. Noe, 616 So.2d at 303-304; Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976, 981 (Miss. 1988); Cardwell v. State, 461 So.2d 754, 760 (Miss. 1984). See also, Welch v. State, 566 So.2d 680, 685 (Miss. 1990) (pictures of dissected cadaver not admissible because they did not show circumstances surrounding death, the cruelty of the crime, the place of the wounds, or the extent of the force or violence used). Further, even when autopsy photographs have been held inadmissible during the guilt phase, they have been admissible, as in the case sub judice, during the sentencing phase on the issue of whether the crime was heinous, atrocious or cruel. Shell v. State, 554 So.2d 887, 902 (Miss. 1989). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in admitting the photographs.