Opinion ID: 1837756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victim's injuries

Text: ¶ 35. Over Jones's objection, the trial court allowed the State to enter photographs depicting Thomas' injuries and listed them as State's exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Jones contends that admitting this evidence constituted reversible error to the extent the photographs were unnecessarily gruesome and highly prejudicial. This Court recently once again discussed the well-familiar standard of review on the issue of admissibility of photographs in Johnson v. State, 908 So.2d 100 (Miss. 2005), and stated that the admissibility of photographs generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court; and, absent an abuse of discretion, the court's decision will be upheld on appeal. Id. at 106 (citing Jackson v. State, 784 So.2d 180, 182-83 (Miss.2001); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1270 (Miss.1996)). In Scott v. State, 878 So.2d 933 (Miss.2004), we held: [T]he admissibility of pictures of gruesome crime scenes is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Chatman v. State, 761 So.2d 851, 854 (Miss. 2001[2000]). Reversal of the trial court will occur only where there is a clear abuse of discretion. Id.; Davis v. State, 551 So.2d 165, 173 (Miss.1989). The discretion of the trial judge `runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value.' Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883, 895 (Miss. 2000) (quoting Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782, 785 (Miss.1987)). Some probative value is the only requirement needed in order to support a trial judge's decision to admit photographs into evidence. Jordan v. State, 728 So.2d 1088, 1094 (Miss.1998). Id. at 985. ¶ 36. In the case sub judice, the decision to allow the photographs depicting Thomas's injuries was clearly within the broad discretion afforded to the trial court. While Jones readily admits that the injuries sustained by Thomas were serious, the mere fact that the defense is willing to stipulate what the prosecution hopes to prove by admitting photographs into evidence does not bar the photographs' admissibility. Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 485 (Miss.2001). The State had the responsibility of presenting a credible story to the jury which accurately depicted the events and the injuries which resulted from the incident that occurred on September 7, 2003. To this end, there is little doubt that the photographs had probative value inasmuch as they provided substantial support to the testimony offered by the State's witnesses. Finding it was clearly within the discretion of the trial judge to allow the photographs into evidence, we hold this issue is without merit.