Opinion ID: 883407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: autopsy slides and photograph

Text: Mergenthaler contends that the District Court erred in allowing the State to present autopsy slides and a photograph of Ashley, while alive, to the jury. We disagree. Our standard of review relating to discretionary trial court rulings is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Steer, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 475, 803 P.2d 601, 603-04. At trial, Dr. Henneford, the physician who performed the autopsy on Ashley, referred to slides taken during the autopsy when he was explaining the nature of the injuries to the jury. It is well established that the trial courts have wide discretion in admitting photographs. State v. Warnick (1983), 202 Mont. 120, 127, 656 P.2d 190, 194. Photographs are admissible for the purpose of explaining and applying the evidence and for assisting the court and the jury in understanding the case. State v. Johnson (1986), 221 Mont. 503, 515, 719 P.2d 1248, 1256. When considering whether photographs should be admitted as evidence at trial, the court must determine whether their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. State v. Gollehon (Mont. 1993), 864 P.2d 1257, 1263, 50 St. Rep. 1564, 1567. In Gollehon, the State introduced twenty autopsy photographs taken by the medical examiner. The defendant contended that the photographs had little probative value and should have been excluded. The photographs were only exhibited during the medical examiner's testimony, and the jury was not allowed to take the photographs into deliberations. We held that, although the photographs depicted the brutality and viciousness of the crimes committed, they were admissible. We stated that we did not believe the photographs would arouse the jurors' passions any more than other evidence of the defendant's conduct. We will not demand that a trial be sanitized to the point that important and probative evidence must be excluded. Gollehon, 864 P.2d at 1263, 50 St.Rep. at 1567. As in Gollehon, the autopsy slides here were only exhibited during Dr. Henneford's testimony for demonstrative purposes. The State did not introduce the slides into evidence; therefore, the jury was not allowed to take the slides into deliberations. In addition, the District Court only allowed a few to be shown during Dr. Henneford's testimony. Dr. Henneford testified that the slides were helpful in describing the procedures he used, and referred to the slides to describe the nature and extent of Ashley's injuries and to show that her injuries could not have occurred through choking, gagging, or as the result of a fall or febrile seizure. We hold that the autopsy slides provided important and probative evidence in explaining to the jury how and why Ashley died, and thus were properly used for demonstrative purposes. The State also introduced a photograph of Ashley when she was alive. Mergenthaler contends that this was prejudicial error. Again, after reviewing the transcript of trial proceedings, we find that the District Court carefully reviewed various in-life photographs in chambers and rejected a number of photographs, including one of Ashley sitting on Donna's lap. The District Court allowed one photograph of Ashley, wearing a snowsuit, sitting on the back of a pickup truck, taken a few weeks before her death, to be introduced to the jury to show who the victim was and what she looked like. The child's size, age, condition, vulnerability, and health were central issues in this case. We have previously held that photographs are admissible if they are relevant to describe a person, place, or thing involved in the case. State v. Mayes (1992), 251 Mont. 358, 371, 825 P.2d 1196, 1205. In this case, the State maintains that the photograph was relevant to show the jury how Ashley looked and what her health was a few weeks prior to the homicide. The photograph shows a happy, healthy, thirteen-month old child, taken a few weeks prior to her death. There was nothing in particular about this photograph that would inflame the passions or emotions of the jury, and Mergenthaler cannot show any prejudice. See Mayes, 825 P.2d at 1205. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce the photograph of Ashley. Affirmed. TURNAGE, JUSTICES GRAY, TRIEWEILER and WEBER concur.