Opinion ID: 1060569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 34

Heading: Photographs of Victim at Sentencing Phase

Text: During the sentencing phase, the State was permitted, over objection, to introduce multiple photographs of the body of the deceased victim, Erica Hurd. [3] The trial court permitted the introduction of the photographs on the issue of establishing the aggravating circumstance heinous, atrocious, or cruel. On appeal, the appellant complains that the admission of the photographs was error. Specifically, he argues that (1) the photographs were more prejudicial than probative and (2) the photographs were cumulative to the testimony of Dr. Smith and the demonstrative evidence of the mannequin. Tennessee courts follow a policy of liberality in the admission of photographs in both civil and criminal cases. State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn.1978) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the admissibility of photographs lies within the discretion of the trial court whose ruling will not be overturned on appeal except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Id. However, before a photograph may be admitted into evidence, it must be relevant to an issue that the jury must decide and the probative value of the photograph must outweigh any prejudicial effect that it may have upon the trier of fact. See State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 758 (Tenn.Crim.App.), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn.1993) (citation omitted); see also Tenn. R. Evid. 401 and 403. Of the ten photographs contested on appeal, two are of the victim at the crime scene and the remaining are photographs from the autopsy. Eight of the ten photographs depict wounds to the victim's face and neck. The appellant contends that the facial pictures are unduly prejudicial in that they are gruesome and inflammatory and the facial expression on the victim's face ... could produce a terrible reaction in the jury. The appellant argues that the introduction of the photographs was unnecessary and cumulative due to the testimony of Dr. Smith describing the wounds and his use of a mannequin to demonstrate the various points of injury. The trial court permitted the photographs of Erica Hurd into evidence, finding that [g]ruesome pictures are admissible in these situations if it would tend to show some of these factors that are involved in the heinous, atrocious or cruel category, torture, physical abuse. Although we concede that the photographs are not pleasant to view, they accurately depict the nature and the extent of the victim's injuries. There is no dispute that the photographs were introduced to prove the aggravating circumstance of heinous, atrocious, or cruel. This evidence was relevant to support the State's proof of the heinous, atrocious, and cruel aggravating circumstance. See, e.g., State v. Hall, 976 S.W.2d 121, 162 (Tenn.1998); State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908, 924 (Tenn.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 829, 116 S.Ct. 99, 133 L.Ed.2d 53 (1995); State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 579 (Tenn.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960, 115 S.Ct. 417, 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994) (citing State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10, 19-20 (Tenn.1990), judgment aff'd. by, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991); State v. Miller, 771 S.W.2d 401, 403-404 (Tenn.1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1031, 110 S.Ct. 3292, 111 L.Ed.2d 801 (1990); State v. Porterfield, 746 S.W.2d 441, 449-450 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1756, 100 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988); State v. McNish, 727 S.W.2d 490, 494-495 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 873, 108 S.Ct. 210, 98 L.Ed.2d 161 (1987)). Notwithstanding, as a general rule, where medical testimony adequately describes the degree or extent of the injury, gruesome and graphic photographs should not be admitted. See State v. Duncan, 698 S.W.2d 63 (Tenn.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S.Ct. 1240, 89 L.Ed.2d 348 (1986). The photographs were used by the physician who performed the autopsy to assist in explaining his testimony about the manner and cause of death. The photographs clarify the complex testimony of Dr. Smith regarding the severity of the injuries. See Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d at 542; Smith, 868 S.W.2d at 576 (photographs used to illustrate witnesses' testimony admissible for this purpose). Moreover, a relevant photograph is not rendered inadmissible merely because it is cumulative. See State v. Bigbee, 885 S.W.2d 797, 807 (Tenn.1994); Van Tran, 864 S.W.2d at 477. We conclude that the photographs were not especially gruesome or shocking in nature so as to preclude their admission. Although any such photographs would be prejudicial to the appellant's case, the photographs introduced at the sentencing hearing were highly probative in determining an aggravating circumstance. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting these photographs during the sentencing process. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403; State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn.1992); Banks, 564 S.W.2d at 947. See also State v. Brown, 756 S.W.2d 700, 704 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988); Freshwater v. State, 2 Tenn.Crim.App. 314, 453 S.W.2d 446, 451-52 (1969); State v. Beckham, No. 02C01-9406-CR-00107, 1995 WL 568471 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Jackson, Sept. 27, 1995), perm. to appeal granted, (Tenn. July 8, 1996), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Sept. 9, 1996). This issue is without merit.