Opinion ID: 1862290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in allowing photographic evidence of the appellant taken five months after the alleged crime was perpetrated.

Text: Ross contends that photos made in September of him and his truck should not have been admitted as evidence of a crime that occurred the previous May. Further, Ross alleges that the photo of him unfairly and prejudicially communicated to the jury that Ross had appeared in a line-up. During complainant Johnson's testimony, she identified a photograph of a truck as looking like the truck she saw her attacker driving. The state, without opposition, offered the photograph as an exhibit. At trial, the state put on testimony from Bill Edwards, who in 1987 served as deputy sheriff and investigator in the Union County Sheriff's Department. Edwards properly identified the photograph of the truck and the owners of the truck as Sammy J. and Vicky Ross. Edwards also identified a photograph he had taken of Ross on September 16, 1987. The photograph depicts Ross in street clothes, full-length, standing in profile. The photograph shows Ross's curly hair, very short beard and moustache, and large stomach. Ross objected to the photos on relevancy grounds, since Edwards took the photos approximately four months after the attack on Johnson. The court overruled the objection. Ross did not preserve for review any objection to the introduction of the photograph of his truck. He made no objection at trial, nor did he object in his motion for new trial. Thus, Ross has failed to properly bring the alleged error before this Court. See Jackson v. State, 423 So.2d 129, 131 (Miss. 1982); Miss. R.Evid. 103(a)(1) (to allege error in admission of evidence, party must specify the ground for objection on the record); Miss. Code Ann. § 9-13-33 (1972). Similarly, Ross did not object at trial or in a motion for new trial to the alleged prejudice arising out of the photograph of him. Thus, this complaint, in which he alleges that the photograph of him in profile constitutes an impermissible mug shot pose, has not been preserved for review. Ross did object to the relevancy of the photo of him. Because he made an objection at trial, he properly presents the issue for review. See Carmichael v. Agur Realty Co., Inc., 574 So.2d 603, 613 (Miss. 1990); Jackson, 423 So.2d at 131. The admission of photographs as evidence rests in the trial judge's discretion. This Court will uphold the trial court's ruling unless the appellant proves an abuse of discretion. Sudduth v. State, 562 So.2d 67, 69 (Miss. 1990); Davis v. State, 551 So.2d 165, 173 (Miss. 1989), cert. denied, Davis v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 1074, 110 S.Ct. 1796, 108 L.Ed.2d 797 (1990). Under this state's rules of evidence, the impermissible admission of evidence constitutes error only where the admission affected a substantial right of the party. Miss.R.Evid. 103(a). The Court has upheld the admission of photos of the accused where the photo comports with the description of the accused at the time of the incident. Dozier v. State, 257 So.2d 857, 860 (Miss. 1972). Even mug shot photos may be admitted, when necessary, provided they do not bear identifying marks indicating that the subject has a prior record. Sloan v. State, 437 So.2d 16, 18 (Miss. 1983). Upon examination, Ross's complaint of error in the introduction of the photo of him bears no merit. Ross's contention in closing argument and on appeal that Johnson's hysteria clouded her memory contradicts his allegation of error here. If Johnson's memory is at issue, the photograph serves to demonstrate to the jury that her description fits Ross, the man depicted. This issue presents no ground for reversal.