Opinion ID: 852183
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Using Projection of Gruesome Photos

Text: Baer contends that trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to the projection of the crime scene photographs on a very large screen. (Appellant's Br. at 64-65.) Specifically, he argues that there could be no strategic reason for failing to object to photographs the prosecutor himself described as `horrifying' and [h]ad trial counsel objected to the manner in which the crime scene photographs were displayed the objection would have been sustained. (Appellant's Br. at 65.) The photographs in question provided a sense of the location of the crime, and they corroborated the responding officer's testimony about the discovery of the victims' bodies, the testimony of other witnesses who described the crime scene, and the extent of the injuries. ( See Trial Tr. at 1174-76.) Although the photographs are most unpleasant, they were admissible to give the jury an understanding of the crime scene and the nature of the crime. See Phillips v. State, 550 N.E.2d 1290, 1299 (Ind.1990). The photos were also pertinent to the jury's task of assessing Baer's level of mental culpability. The current contention is not about admissibility but about manner of display. Respectable counsel could take differing views about whether it was more prejudicial to the defense for jurors to see such photographs on a large screen or to linger over the images while holding them in their own hands.