Opinion ID: 1919348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Admission of Victim Photograph.

Text: ś 122. Hodges next claims that the trial court erred in admitting State's Exhibit 10, which is a photograph depicting Isaac Johnson's midsection, where the victim was shot, after it had been cleaned and washed. Hodges argues that the picture was prejudicial and lacked any probative value because the State's only purpose in submitting the picture was to inflame the jury. Hodges objected to this picture being admitted into evidence and also tried to stipulate what the prosecution was trying to prove. Hodges cites McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151, 159 (Miss.1989), for the proposition that all photographs which are gruesome or inflammatory are always inadmissible as evidence. ś 123. The admissibility of photographs rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Jackson v. State, 672 So.2d 468, 485 (Miss.1996); Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 549 (Miss.1990); Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 31 (Miss. 1990); Boyd v. State, 523 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Miss.1988). Moreover, the decision of the trial judge will be upheld unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Westbrook v. State, 658 So.2d 847, 849 (Miss.1995). The discretion of the trial judge runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value. Hart v. State, 637 So.2d 1329, 1335 (Miss.1994) (quoting Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782, 785 (Miss.1987)). The mere fact that the defense is willing to stipulate what the prosecution hopes to prove by admitting the photographs into evidence does not bar their admissibility. Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 485 (Miss.2001) (citing Hughes v. State, 735 So.2d 238, 263 (Miss. 1999)). In Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246 (Miss.1996), this Court noted that photographs have been held to be so gruesome and inflammatory as to be prejudicial in only one circumstance, a close-up photograph of a partly decomposed, maggot-infested skull. Id. at 1270 (citing McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151 (Miss.1989)). Photographs may nevertheless be admitted into evidence in criminal cases where they have probative value and where they are not so gruesome or used in such a way as to be overly prejudicial or inflammatory. Hewlett v. State, 607 So.2d 1097, 1102 (Miss.1992). ś 124. This Court has found that photographs of a victim have evidentiary value when they aid in describing the circumstances of the killing, Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266 (Miss.1978); describe the location of the body and cause of death, Ashley v. State, 423 So.2d 1311 (Miss. 1982); or supplement or clarify witness testimony, Hughes v. State, 401 So.2d 1100 (Miss.1981). ś 125. However, this Court has also continuously held that autopsy photographs are admissible only if they possess probative value. See Puckett v. State, 737 So.2d 322, 338 (Miss.1999); Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298 (Miss.1993). State's exhibit 10 shows the midsection of the body cleaned and washed but before the autopsy began. The picture does not depict him cut up, the picture only shows the midsection of the body with a tiny bullet hole above the navel. The Comment to M.R.E. 401 states that if there is any probative value, the rule favors admission of the evidence. The photograph at issue accurately depicts the wound inflicted upon the victim and the cause of death. It certainly does not rise to the level of gruesomeness noted in McNeal. There is absolutely no blood anywhere in the photo, and there is nothing gory, gruesome or inflammatory about the picture. Dr. Hayne testified that the picture was taken to indicate the entrance of the gunshot wound and to show how such positioning affected his organs and blood loss, causing death. Photographs have evidentiary purpose when they describe the circumstances and cause of death. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph.