Opinion ID: 1771774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence gruesome and prejudicial photographs, as well as videotape of defendant?

Text: ś 39. Puckett maintains that the trial judge erred in admitting twenty-one (21) photographs into evidence as well as a videotape of the defendant. Puckett acquiesces that the trial court is granted broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of photographs, but maintains that the photographs admitted in the case at bar did not have any probative value and as such were not admissible since the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Puckett further cites Sudduth v. State, 562 So.2d 67 (Miss.1990) in support of his argument that the pictures present no probative value, in light of the fact that none of the following questions were at issue in this cause; corpus delicti; cause of death; location or identity of the victim. ś 40. As in the case at bar, the defendant in Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298 (Miss.1993) claimed that the photographs admitted into evidence were not only gruesome and inflammatory, but served no useful evidentiary purpose because the defendant was willing to stipulate that the victim was Steven Wilson and that Wilson died as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest. Id. at 303. However, this Court held [w]here, ..., photographs have probative value, stipulations such as this are not an impediment to admissibility. Id. Although the Noe decision deals primarily with the admissibility of autopsy photographs, it provides a very thorough analysis of the rules governing admissibility of photographs in general and is helpful to the determination of this issue. It is well settled in this state that the admission of photographs is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trail judge and that his discretion favoring admissibility will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that judicial discretion. A review of our case law indicates that the discretion of the trial judge runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value. A photograph, even if gruesome, grisly, unpleasant, or even inflammatory, may still be admissible if it has probative value and its introduction into evidence serves a meaningful evidentiary purpose. However, while a trial judge has a great deal of discretion in the admission of photographs, this discretion is not unfettered. Indiscriminate use of autopsy photographs depicting a corpse upon which a medical technician or pathologist has used the tools of his trade to puncture, sever, dissect, and otherwise traumatize body parts is ill-advised. Autopsy photographs are admissible only if they possess probative value. In Welch v. State, 566 So.2d 680, 685 (Miss.1990), we found no probative value in autopsy photographs of a dissected cadaver which demonstrated neither the circumstances surrounding death, the cruelty of the crime, the location of the wounds nor the extent of the force and violence used. This Court held, on the other hand, in Marks v. State, 532 So.2d 976 (Miss. 1988), that admission of nude autopsy photographs were not an abuse of judicial discretion where the photographs clearly depicted the number, placement and multiplicity of stab wounds, the extent of the force and violence used, and where the photographs had probative value with respect to the defendant's state of mind. Id. at 303-04 (citations omitted). ś 41. The following is a listing of the specific photographs (State's Exhibits) with which the defendant took issue, the reasons for the defendant's objections to each photograph, and the State's response to each. The listing will be grouped according to that depicted in Puckett's appeal brief.