Opinion ID: 1518087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Color Slides

Text: The victim of the crime was fatally wounded by a bullet from a .45 caliber service revolver, the projectile having entered in the center of the chest and having exited midway up the deceased's back. During the autopsy, fifteen photographs were taken, nine before any incisions had been made and six during and after the internal investigation. In none of the first nine is there any evidence of blood or viscera; instead it is obvious that care was used to clean the corpse prior to photographing it so that the resulting pictures would show only the external indications of the bullet wound, a wound which appears at both entry and exit points as a small circular puncture. The Commonwealth offered all fifteen slides into evidence, but, after timely objection by defense counsel, the trial judge examined the series and ruled that most were inadmissible. Of those ruled admissible, the Commonwealth actually introduced only three: one of the nude upper torso of the deceased, including the head; one of the upper back of the deceased, and one of the upper torso from the side with metal rods projecting from the two wounds, indicating the path of the bullet from front to back. The slides were shown to the jury for a total of six minutes and twenty seconds, and were not sent out with the jury. The general principles in this branch of evidentiary law are well settled. In Commonwealth v. Powell, 428 Pa. 275, 278-79, 241 A. 2d 119 (1968), we set forth the test of admissibility of photographs of the deceased as being whether or not the photographs are of such essential evidentiary value that their need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors. Application of that test is primarily within the discretion of the trial judge, Powell, supra, at 278, and we will not reverse unless the lower court flagrantly abused that discretion. Commonwealth v. Biebighauser, 450 Pa. 336, 300 A. 2d 70 (1973); Commonwealth v. Smalls, 449 Pa. 15, 295 A. 2d 298 (1972); Commonwealth v. Chasten, 443 Pa. 29, 275 A. 2d 305 (1971). This is so because determination of the risk of prejudice cannot be made by resort to conclusory adjectives such as gruesome or inflammatory, but instead must result from an objective evaluation of how the evidence offered will affect the thinking of the average juror. There is wisely no rule that a photograph of a corpse is, without more, gruesome or inflammatory, and the admissibility of a color slide of a murder victim has been held to be affected by the manner in which the photograph was made. Commonwealth v. Collins, 440 Pa. 368, 371, 269 A. 2d 882 (1970) (excess blood removed from decedent's face). We find ourselves, after viewing the three slides admitted at trial, in agreement with the lower court, which held that these slides were not particularly bloody, gruesome or repulsive, except to the extent that any photograph of a deceased person is unpleasant. The situation at bar is close to that in Commonwealth v. Wilson, 431 Pa. 21, 32, 244 A. 2d 734 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1102, 21 L. Ed. 2d 794 (1969), where we observed that the slides were probative of an element in the Commonwealth's case (use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body as permitting an inference of malice), were not nearly so gruesome and inflammatory as were the photographs in Eckhart (Commonwealth v. Eckhart, 430 Pa. 311, 242 A. 2d 271 (1968)), and that [t]he court below clearly exercised . . . discretion, taking care to limit any prejudicial effect the slides might have had. Although the Commonwealth sought to introduce five slides, the court admitted only three, excluding one as being repetitious, and a second as being too inflammatory. The three slides admitted were shown for a total of less than two minutes and did not go out with the jury. We therefore think the lower court cannot be charged with abuse of discretion in having admitted these three slides into evidence. The judgment of sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. Mr. Justice MANDERINO concurs in the result.