Opinion ID: 1669438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the trial court err in allowing into evidence photographs of the amputation?

Text: ¶ 48. A decision of a trial judge to admit photographs into evidence will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Morris v. State, 777 So.2d 16, 27 (Miss.2000). 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. Minor v. State 831 So.2d 1116, 1120 (Miss.2002) (quoting Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298, 303 (Miss.1993)). [P]hotographs which are gruesome or inflammatory and lack an evidentiary purpose are always inadmissible as evidence. McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 134 (Miss.1987). ¶ 49. This Court finds that the photographs of the amputation were exhibited for no meaningful evidentiary purpose. The pictures in question (an original and one enlarged blurry copy) are of an unidentifiable, bloody, severed body part. In Minor v. State, 831 So.2d 1116, 1120 (Miss.2002), quoting Noe, 616 So.2d at 303, this Court held that the use of photographs depicting body parts upon which a medical technician . . . has used the tools of his trade to puncture, sever, dissect, and otherwise traumatize body parts is ill-advised. In the case sub judice, Clein introduced into evidence poorly defined photos of a bloody, amputated limb, which served no probative evidentiary purpose other than to prejudice the defendant and to shock the jury. Accordingly, it was error to introduce the photo. Standing alone, this would unlikely be reversible error, however, we caution litigants against using photographs which serve no probative evidentiary purpose.