Opinion ID: 1882035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence two color photographs depicting the victim's sutured head wound?

Text: ¶ 46. Crawford cites Rule 609(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence in arguing that the trial court erred in admitting two photographs taken of the victim after her release from the hospital. Crawford objected and argues now that the photographs were highly prejudicial and should have been excluded. ¶ 47. The State counters that the photographs were innocuous and had probative value. The State argues the photographs were admissible to show the nature and extent of the bodily injury; significant because bodily injury is a necessary element of the crime of aggravated assault. See Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-7(2)(b). The State also contends [t]he photographs were admissible to show the location of the wound to the victim's head and the severity of the blows. In addition, the State argues that the photographs were admissible to help clarify the testimony of the victim, Nicole Cutberth. She testified the photographs fairly and accurately depicted [her] condition after [she][was] released and [was] at home. Photographs have evidentiary value where they supplement or clarify testimony of a witness. Westbrook v. State, 658 So.2d 847 (Miss.1995). ¶ 48. The trial court is granted broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of photographs. Gossett v. State, 660 So.2d 1285, 1292 (Miss.1995). A decision favoring admissibility will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298 (Miss.1993). Crawford does not provide any support for a finding of abuse of judicial discretion. Therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.