Opinion ID: 1962598
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The commission of an instruction as to the photographs.

Text: The defendant argues that the presiding Justice should have included in his charge to the jury, a cautionary instruction regarding two gruesome photographs which were admitted into evidence. The defendant failed to request such an instruction from the presiding Justice, nor did he interpose a specific objection to the charge as given. [2] The omission of such an instruction would be grounds for reversal only in the rare circumstance that it amounted to an obvious error affecting substantial rights. M.R.Crim.P. 52(b). State v. Armstrong, Me., 344 A.2d 42, 49 (1975); State v. Scott, Me., 343 A. 2d 177, 178 (1975); State v. Collins, Me., 297 A.2d 620, 631 (1972). The photographs were relevant to the issues before the court and their probative value was not outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the defendant. This Court has repeatedly held that the admissibility of potentially prejudicial photographic evidence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Berube, Me., 297 A.2d 884, 888 (1972); State v. Rollins, Me., 295 A.2d 914, 917 (1972); State v. Coty, Me., 229 A.2d 205, 214 (1967). One of the photographs, which depicted the neck and head of the victim, was introduced for the purpose of aiding the jury to understand the testimony of the State's medical expert as to the cause of death. When this photograph was introduced, the presiding Justice cautioned the jury that they were to consider the photograph only as it related to the testimony of the medical expert. [3] The trial court's prompt and appropriate admonition was entirely adequate to mitigate any asserted prejudice that the introduction of the photograph might have worked on the defendant. The second photograph depicts the victim's body and the immediate surroundings at the scene of the crime. The presiding Justice did not abuse his discretion in admitting the photographs. The defendant's argument that he was substantially prejudiced by the absence of a jury instruction as to the photographs is rejected.