Opinion ID: 1126392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in allowing the introduction of gruesome and graphic photographs

Text: ¶ 31. Jones asserts the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence exhibits 3 and 4, contending these photographs were more prejudicial than probative. In response to Jones's assertion, the State argues the photographs were relevant for a number of reasons, including: (1) depicting the condition of the body at the time it was discovered; (2) showing the extent of the body's deterioration, which explains why other body parts were missing or found at different points in the creek; and (3) to demonstrate the pathologist's inability to find gunshot holes in the body due to its badly decomposed condition. This Court agrees and finds the circuit court did not err in admitting these photographs into evidence. ¶ 32. It is well settled in Mississippi that the admissibility of photographs rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Westbrook v. State, 658 So.2d 847, 849 (Miss.1995). Photographs that are gruesome or inflammatory or lack an evidentiary purpose are inadmissible as evidence. McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151, 159 (Miss.1989). However, if photographs are relevant, the mere fact that they are unpleasant or gruesome is no bar to their admission. Sudduth v. State, 562 So.2d 67, 69 (Miss.1990). Furthermore, photographs have evidentiary value when they: (1) aid in describing the circumstances around the killing and the corpus delicti; (2) where they describe the location of the body and the cause of death; or (3) where they supplement or clarify witness testimony. McGilberry, 741 So.2d at 906. ¶ 33. In the present case, Exhibit 4 is neither gruesome nor unpleasant. The photograph provides an aerial view of the intersection of Watkins Drive and Hanging Moss Creek, the area where Steve's body was discovered. Exhibit 4 simply gives an overall view of the area and creek where the body was discovered. It further supplements the testimony of the officers who were first called to Watkins Drive to investigate the discovery of a possible body. This photograph is neither prejudicial nor gruesome, and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it into evidence. ¶ 34. Exhibit 3 depicts a decomposed leg, hand, and part of an arm. While there is no question the photograph is unpleasant, its prejudicial effect is outweighed by its probative value. The picture depicts the location and condition of the body as it was first discovered. The picture further clarifies the testimony of Officer Johnny Taylor's description of what he found when he first arrived at the scene. The trial judge examined the photographs at trial and ruled exhibits 3 and 4 admissible. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial judge's decision will not be overturned. Westbrook, 658 So.2d at 849. Therefore, this Court finds the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photographs into evidence.