Opinion ID: 1142502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Admission of Photographs and the Use of a Slide Projector

Text: Billy Jenkins asserts that the trial court erred by admitting the photographic evidence offered by the State and, further, by allowing the State to use a slide projector to present this inflammatory evidence to the jury. We disagree. First, this Court has consistently held that the admissibility of photographic evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. The lower court's ruling will be upheld on appeal unless abuse of discretion can be shown. Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 753-54 (Miss.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 663, 116 L.Ed.2d 754 (1991); Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 31 (Miss. 1990). [P]hotographs of bodies may be admitted into evidence where they have probative value, and where they are not so gruesome as to be overly prejudicial and inflammatory. Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928, 934 (Miss. 1986). In today's case, the photographs admitted into evidence recorded different wounds to the body of the victim. Prosecution Exhibits 11 and 12, depicting the knife protruding from the victim's throat, were indeed graphic but not overly gruesome or inflammatory. Thus, the trial judge was within his discretion in determining that their probative value outweighed any prejudice to Billy Jenkins. Next, Jenkins asserts that the use of a slide projector to enhance the testimony of Officer Bud Smith served only to inflame the jury and constitutes reversible error on appeal. In Stringer, this Court denounced the prosecution's use of a slide show during their closing argument. Id. at 935. The Court found that this tactic was an unnecessary means of inflaming the jury and was, in combination with other prejudicial tactics, reversible error. In the case sub judice, the projector use was limited to aiding the testimony of the witness, Smith, and was not used in closing argument. In Smith v. State, 419 So.2d 563 (Miss. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1449, 75 L.Ed.2d 803 (1983), we ruled that the use of a slide projector was a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. This Court noted that issues of competency, relevancy, and materiality were within the lower court's discretion. We agree that the State should not use a slide show in an attempt to inflame the jury in closing arguments. See Stringer, 500 So.2d at 935. We do not agree, however, that the use of a slide projector to enhance the testimony of Officer Bud Smith was improper in today's case. The trial judge simply ruled that the use of the slide presentation would allow the jury to follow the testimony of Officer Smith by viewing the slides as the witness related his findings. Certainly this Court will encourage trial courts to use modern and proper techniques to aid the jury in understanding the witness or other evidence. Our review of the record reveals no error in the trial judge's ruling. In fact the use of the slide projector was conducive to an improved trial. This assignment of error, therefore, is without merit.