Opinion ID: 1771982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court commit reversible error in admitting into evidence graphic photographs?

Text: Williams objected to the introduction of certain photographs contending that they were unnecessarily enlarged, were gruesome, repetitive and thus prejudicial and inflammatory. The subject matter of those photographs was: Exhibit 3(A), the heart and larynx of the victim, separated from the body at autopsy; Exhibit 3(B) and (C), upper portions of the victim's body at autopsy; Exhibit 4(A), Pierce's body as found at the scene of the murder; Exhibits 4(B), (C), (D), (E), close up views of the chest area at autopsy; Exhibits 5(A), (B), (C), (D), enlarged close up views of the wound to the genital area. While acknowledging that generally the admissibility of photographs is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and the admission is proper, so long as their introduction serves some useful evidentiary purpose. Williams contends that the close-up photographs were not necessary for the jury's understanding of the cause of death nor was the repetitive nature, and the result could only be to inflame and prejudice the jury. We have repeatedly admitted photographs of every description with the explanation that some probative value is present. Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1206 (Miss. 1985); Swanier v. State, 437 So.2d 180, 185 (Miss. 1985); Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 341 (Miss. 1985); Holliday v. State, 455 So.2d 750, 752 (Miss. 1984); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 460 (Miss. 1984). Abuse of discretion is sometimes explained to be admission of photographs when a killing is not contradicted or denied or the corpus delicti and the identity of the deceased have been established. Sharp v. State, 446 So.2d 1008, 1009 (Miss. 1984); Shearer v. State, 423 So.2d 824, 827 (Miss. 1982); Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266, 267 (Miss. 1978). A review of our case law indicates that the discretion of the trial judge runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value. At this point in the development of our case law, no meaningful limits exist in these so-called balance of probative/prejudicial effect of photographs test. This assignment of error is no basis for reversal.