Opinion ID: 1706325
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the crime scene photographs were overly prejudicial.

Text: ¶ 23. At trial, Dampier objected to the admission of multiple crime scene photographs. Regarding State's Exhibits 21 through 29, Dampier argued that: it is uncontested that [McGuffee] was killed[,] . . . was shot[,] . . [and] was in the building, lying on the floor. We have . . . testimony from the person who . . . found him [Lewis]. The prejudicial effect of this highly outweighs the probative value that it might have since it is uncontested. The State, responded that: the testimony shows that, number one, this was a bloody scene. There's been some statements on cross[-]examination that we have Mr. McGuffee's blood on [Jermaine]. Those pictures are necessary to show it was a bloody scene at the area in front of the desk and the splatter away from the body was not that great. That would explain the absence of blood on [Dampier]. That's what we expect the officer to testify, about the blood splatter. Further, the position of the body is important and ha[s] evidentiary value. The finding of the bullet fragments have evidentiary value. The circuit court admitted the photographs, concluding that [u]nder the 403 standard, the probative value is not outweighed by the prejudicial effect. ¶ 24. Regarding State's Exhibits 56 and 57, counsel for Dampier stated we're just restating our other argument that it's more prejudicial than probative, and at this point it appears to be merely cumulative because there are similar photos taken. As to Exhibit 56, the circuit court found that doing the balancing test . . . this does show the location of the bullet fragment relative to the victim. The probative value is not substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. That one will be admitted . . . Addressing Exhibit 57, the circuit court concluded that the photograph would aid the State's argument that the body had been moved and found that the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. . . .  [21] ¶ 25. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403 provides, in pertinent part, that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of . . . needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Miss. R. Evid. 403 (emphasis added). The admission of photographs is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and . . . his decision favoring admissibility will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that judicial discretion. Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298, 303 (Miss. 1993) (citing Gardner v. State, 573 So.2d 716 (Miss.1990)) (emphasis added). The discretion of the trial judge is almost unlimited . . . regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value. Noe, 616 So.2d at 303 (quoting Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782, 785 (Miss.1987)). So long as a photograph has probative value and its introduction serves a meaningful evidentiary purpose[,] it may still be admissible despite being gruesome, grisly, unpleasant, or even inflammatory. Id. (citations omitted). In this case, the trial court's burden was substantially lessened, as the photographs failed to exhibit elements of gruesomeness. Compare to McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151 (Miss.1989) (solitary instance of photographs being held prejudicial involving a close-up photograph of a partly decomposed, maggot-infested skull). Photographs are considered to have evidentiary value in the following instances: (1) aid in describing the circumstances of the killing; (2) describe the location of the body and cause of death; (3) supplement or [clarify] witness testimony. McIntosh v. State, 917 So.2d 78, 84 (Miss.2005) (quoting Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883, 895 (Miss.2000)). ¶ 26. The circuit court applied the test of Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403 to each of the photographs and determined that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. The circuit court also noted a meaningful evidentiary purpose and probative value of each specific photograph. Therefore, this Court finds that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in their admission. See Noe, 616 So.2d at 303. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.