Opinion ID: 1700113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: admission of photographs, slides, and mannequin

Text: Defense counsel made a pretrial motion to prevent the State from utilizing certain exhibits in connection with the testimony of Dr. Brad Randall, the forensic pathologist. At an in-chambers hearing during the trial, and prior to Dr. Randall's testimony, defense counsel again objected to the exhibits. The State contended that the evidence was properly admissible as necessary to assist the expert witness in presenting testimony to the jury. The slides and photographs were duplicates. The reasons given for duplication were: (1) use of the slides would allow all the jurors to see the same picture at the same time and less distraction would occur if the jurors did not have to pass the photographs around, and (2) the photographs made it unnecessary to send a slide projector to the jury room. The court allowed the exhibits. Defense counsel requested that the record note his objection to each and every one of the photographs. Defense counsel also objected on the record to the slides to be used by Dr. Randall. Defense counsel's request that his objection be noted on the record after his original objection was overruled was sufficient as a continuing objection to preserve the issue for appeal. Although the photographs and slides were grotesque and the admission of both was cumulative, such admissions were not improper because they were necessary to aid the expert's presentation, prevent jury distraction, and aid the jury. See State v. Holland, 346 N.W.2d 302, 307 (S.D.1984). The use of the mannequin was likewise proper.