Opinion ID: 1090858
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred by admitting certain photographs of the crime scene.

Text: ¶ 11. Davis next argues that photographs of Arnold were unduly gruesome and served only to prejudice and inflame the jury. Four of the disputed photographs depicted the interior of the camp cabin and the location and relation of Arnold's body to the interior and blood splatters on the wall and floor. Two other photographs were taken during the autopsy each of which depict the injuries to each side of Arnold's face and head. The State counters that the trial court correctly admitted the photographs because they showed the nature and extent of the injuries Arnold sustained and the circumstances surrounding the incident. ¶ 12. We will not reverse a trial court's decision to admit photographs of a murder victim's body unless the court abused its discretion. Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 485 (Miss.2001) (citing Gray v. State, 728 So.2d 36, 57 (Miss.1998)). We have likewise held that a trial judge's discretion to admit such photographs is nearly limitless regardless of the gruesomeness and repetitiveness. Woodward v. State, 726 So.2d 524, 535 (Miss.1997). Photographs of a victim have evidentiary value where they 1) aid in describing the circumstances of the killing and the corpus delicti; 2) where they describe the location of the body and cause of death; and 3) where they supplement or clarify witness testimony. Westbrook v. State, 658 So.2d 847, 849 (Miss.1995) (citations omitted). See also Neal v. State, 805 So.2d 520, 524 (Miss.2002); Jones v. State, 776 So.2d 643, 652 (Miss.2000). ¶ 13. Here, there is no indication that the prejudicial value of the photographs outweighed their probative value. They served the legitimate evidentiary purpose of depicting the angles and trajectories of the gunshots about which Dr. Steven Hayne, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy, testified, and they did not to inflame the jury. See, e.g., McDowell v. State, 813 So.2d 694, 699 (Miss. 2002); Stevens v. State, 808 So.2d 908, 926 (Miss.2002); Drake v. State, 800 So.2d 508, 515-16 (Miss.2001); Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179, 191 (Miss.2001). This assignment of error is without merit.