Opinion ID: 1655709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the lower court erred in allowing the introduction of the accident scene videotape in its entirety?

Text: ¶ 25. Theodore next asserts that the trial court erred by allowing the introduction of the accident scene videotape in its entirety. Specifically, Theodore alleges that the videotape of the crime scene did not add anything to the story. Theodore also alleges that the video did not help in corroborating the testimony of any witnesses. For instance, Theodore asserts that the intention of the State was to arouse the passion and prejudice of the jury. At trial, Theodore objected to the body of Rodney Crenshaw being shown on the videotape. ¶ 26. The State submits that the introduction of the videotape was not in error. The State argues that the scene of the flipped tracker and the victim were more probative than prejudicial. The video provided a three dimensional view of the scene as originally viewed by the investigating officers and was therefore a valid aid for the jury. The State points out that the videotape helped corroborate the testimony of several witnesses. The State also pointed out at trial that the portion of the tape which showed Crenshaw was approximately 3 seconds in length. It argues this to support the proposition that there was no prejudice to Theodore and, if so, the probative value outweighed any such effect. ¶ 27. This Court has held that the same standards used in determining the admissibility of photographs are applicable to the admission of videotapes. Walters v. State, 720 So.2d 856, 861 (Miss.1998) (citing Underwood v. State, 708 So.2d 18, 33 (Miss.1998)). Applying that standard, the admissibility of photographs is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. This discretion will be upheld absent abuse of discretion. McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss.1987) (citing Watson v. State, 483 So.2d 1326, 1328 (Miss.1986)). This Court has also held that [t]he 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). 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. Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d 473, 484 (Miss.1988). ¶ 28. Here, the videotape was introduced during the testimony of Officer Keith Johnson, a forensic scientist employed by the Gulfport Police Department. Outside the presence of the jury, the judge heard both parties' arguments regarding the admissibility of the videotape. A monitor was brought into the court room, and the videotape was played for the judge and the parties. The jury was still excused at this point. The defense counsel objected to the portion of the videotape that showed Crenshaw lying in the door of the overturned jeep. Defense counsel argued that this was cumulative and prejudicial. The State argued that the total tape was only 3 minutes long and that Crenshaw's body was only shown for a few seconds of that time. The State also argued that its purpose was to orientate the jury to the scene of the accident and the shooting, and it corroborated the testimony of several witnesses. After weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect of the tape, the court held that the videotape would be admissible due to its depiction of exactly what the Officer saw upon arrival to the scene of the crime. The jury then reentered the courtroom. ¶ 29. As earlier mentioned, [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. Lanier v. State, 533 So.2d at 484. Again, the trial judge has sound discretion in the admissibility of photographs absent the abuse of discretion. Watson v. State, 483 So.2d at 1328. The trial judge was careful in his determination of the admissibility of the videotape. For example, the judge conducted a hearing, outside of the presence of the jury, and weighed the probative value against the prejudicial effect. For this reason, this conduct does not rise to the level of abuse of discretion; therefore, the decision was within the judge's sound discretion and will not be overturned on appeal.