Opinion ID: 1104480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was the trial court in error in admitting (a) evidence of prior acts and offenses by the appellants: and (b) photographs of the deceased?

Text: At trial, the appellants by motion in limine objected to the admission of any evidence relating to incidents or events occurring prior to April 17, 1982, the date of the crime of murder charged in the indictment. The trial court overruled the motion and witnesses on behalf of the State were permitted to testify to events that occurred in the Fall of 1981, which tended to establish that Shawn had previously been subjected to abuse. Appellants assign this ruling as error. The general rule in this state is that a conviction should be based upon evidence showing guilt of the particular offense charged in the indictment, and proof which shows or tends to show the accused is guilty of the commission of other crimes at other times, even though they are of the same nature as the one charged in the indictment, is incompetent and inadmissible for the purpose of showing the commission of the particular crime charged. Readus v. State, 272 So.2d 659 (Miss. 1973); King v. State, 66 Miss. 502, 6 So. 188 (1889). There are, however, several well-recognized exceptions to this general rule. Evidence of other crimes, for example, is admissible to prove motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others, or the identity of the persons charged with the commission of the crime on trial. Readus, supra at 661 (and cases cited therein); May v. State, 199 So.2d 635 (Miss. 1967) (in prosecution of defendant for murder of wife, testimony of daughter that defendant had on a prior occasion fired a pistol at his wife held admissible to prove intent and absence of accident). In Aldridge v. State, 398 So.2d 1308 (Miss. 1981), this Court held that in a prosecution for felonious abuse and battery of a child under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-39, evidence of prior acts of child abuse is admissible to negate the idea that the injuries resulted from an isolated accident. Aldridge was subsequently reaffirmed in Shelton v. State, 445 So.2d 844 (Miss. 1984). We conclude that such evidence is likewise admissible where death results and the prosecution is one for murder. United States v. Colvin, 614 F.2d 44 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied 446 U.S. 945, 100 S.Ct. 2174, 64 L.Ed.2d 802 (1980) (in prosecution of mother for second degree murder of daughter, evidence of prior injuries showing pattern of abuse held admissible to prove malice aforethought); United States v. Grady, 481 F.2d 1106 (D.C.Circ. 1973) (in prosecution of mother for second degree murder of daughter, evidence of previous beatings of child held admissible to prove intent, malice and absence of mistake or accident); Holland v. State, 346 N.W.2d 302 (S.D. 1984) (same); State v. Germain, 433 So.2d 110 (LA 1983) (same); Payne v. State, 249 Ga. 354, 291 S.E.2d 226 (1982) (same). The admissibility of such evidence, however, is subject to proof demonstrating that the defendant committed the prior offense. United States v. Colvin, supra at 45; United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 912-913 (5th Cir.1978). This conclusion is in line with this Court's decision in Daumer v. State, 381 So.2d 1014 (Miss. 1980). Appellant Daumer and his wife were jointly convicted for the murder of the wife's natural son. At the trial, several witnesses testified to events tending to establish prior abuse of the child. On appeal, the appellants did not challenge the admissibility of the evidence of prior acts, but argued that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In reviewing the evidence on appeal, this Court assigned weight to the testimony concerning prior abuse and the inferences deductible therefrom, thereby recognizing the probative value of such evidence. This testimony was admissible and we find no error here.
At trial, the appellants objected by motion in limine to the introduction of photographs of the deceased child on the grounds that they were gruesome, inflammatory and had no probative value. The trial court ruled the photographs admissible. It is well settled in Mississippi that the admissibility of photographs is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Edwards v. State, 413 So.2d 1007 (Miss. 1982). A photograph, though gruesome or inflammatory, may still be admissible as long as its introduction serves some useful evidentiary purpose. Butler v. State, 320 So.2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1975). In Stevens v. State, 458 So.2d 726, 729 (Miss. 1984), this Court upheld, as serving legitimate evidentiary purposes, the admission of photographs of a murder victim which established both the multiplicity of blows administered and the extent of force and violence used. See also Clingon v. State, 293 So.2d 823 (Miss. 1974); Dase v. State, 356 So.2d 1179 (Miss. 1978). In the case sub judice, the photographs admitted into evidence corroborated the location of wounds, the multiplicity of wounds and the extent of force and violence used; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photographs.