Opinion ID: 1652601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain photographs of the victim.

Text: ¶ 8. Neal argues that the photographs of the deceased admitted into evidence were not relevant and only served to inflame jury. One photograph (Exhibit SA-1) depicted the location of the body when found by Lt. Little. Another photograph (Exhibit SB-1) showed the wound and identified the deceased after the emergency technicians moved the body for examination purposes. ¶ 9. We have held that, when photographs depict the circumstances of death, location of body and manner of death, deference must be given to the trial judge's exercise of discretion on the admissibility of photographs of victims in murder cases: Photographs have evidentiary value where they: (1) aid in describing the circumstances of the killing and the corpus delicti; Williams v. State, 354 So.2d 266 (Miss.1978); (2) where they describe the location of the body and cause of death; Ashley v. State, 423 So.2d 1311 (Miss.1982); and (3) where they supplement or clarify witness testimony. Hughes v. State, 401 So.2d 1100 (Miss. 1981). This Court has determined that the admissibility of photographs rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542 (Miss. 1990); see also Mackbee v. State, 575 So.2d 16, 31 (Miss.1990); Boyd v. State, 523 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Miss.1988); Smith v. State, 419 So.2d 563, 567 (Miss.1982), cert. denied 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1449, 75 L.Ed.2d 803 (1983). Furthermore, the decision of such trial judge will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Herring v. State, 374 So.2d 784, 789 (Miss.1979); see also Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 341 (Miss.1985), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1164, 106 S.Ct. 2291, 90 L.Ed.2d 732 (1986). Such 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)). Westbrook v. State, 658 So.2d 847, 849 (Miss.1995). ¶ 10. There is nothing gory or inflammatory about the pictures. These photographs were admissible to show the location of the victim's body, indicating the circumstances of the killing, and the cause of death of the deceased. See Westbrook, 658 So.2d at 849. There was no abuse of discretion committed by the trial court in allowing the photographs into evidence.