Opinion ID: 1709217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the trial court err in admitting photographs of blanchard?

Text: Three photographs of Blanchard's body were admitted into evidence at trial. They were marked as State's Exhibits #2, #3, and #4. Exhibit No. 2 is almost a full-length picture of Blanchard, showing him fully clothed, with a sock and shoe on his left foot. Exhibit No. 3 shows a sock and a shoe on his left foot, and more clearly shows that Blanchard fell next to a bed. Exhibit No. 3 is more of a close-up shot, showing Blanchard's head and trunk. In all of the shots, Blanchard's body is lying on his stomach and neither his wounds nor any blood is visible. The pictures are black and white. The appellant argues that the pictures had no probative value and were admitted only to inflame the jury. He relies on the testimony at trial of former Chief of Police Leon Williams, who took the pictures. Williams testified that he took the pictures only to get a picture of the body. That's all I figured I needed, a picture of the deceased. As recently as in Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928 (1986), this Court said, It has long been the position of this Court that photographs of bodies may be admitted into evidence where they have probative value, and where they are not so gruesome as to be overly prejudicial and inflammatory. Johnson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1206 (Miss. 1985); Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332 (Miss. 1985). At page 341. [Emphasis added] The appellant, by his emphasis on Williams' testimony, seems to argue that probative value must be established at the time the pictures are made. However, in Cabello, this Court reiterated its view that the admission of photographs is within the discretion of the trial court. 471 So.2d at 341. Thus, Williams' motivation for taking the pictures is irrelevant, as long as the trial court properly found that the pictures have probative value. It cannot be seriously argued that the photographs in question are so gruesome as to be overly prejudicial and inflammatory. However, it is dubious whether they all had probative value. At issue in this case was whether Blanchard was shot while in the bed or while standing in the doorway of the bedroom, whether he was fully clothed when he was shot, and whether Blanchard's gun could be seen in the photographs. Exhibits No. 2 and 3 were adequate to show the whereabouts of the body and the clothing on it. Exhibit No. 4 appears to be cumulative. At issue, then, is whether cumulative or repetitive photographs of a deceased may be admitted into evidence where they are not particularly gruesome. The language quoted above from Stringer would indicate that photographs must not be inflammatory and they must have probative value. However, in light of the fact that these pictures were not particularly gory, any error in admitting them was harmless. In conclusion, we hold that the argument of the district attorney as to appellant's wife's failure to testify should not have been permitted and the failure of the trial judge to sustain an objection thereto was reversible error. Therefore, we reverse this case, vacate the life sentence and remand it back to the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Mississippi for such further action as may be appropriate not inconsistant with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE AND HAWKINS, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.