Opinion ID: 2129823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: Upon this issue, this case is not unlike Ferrier v. State (1977), Ind., 361 N.E.2d 150, in that the defendant's argument on appeal is addressed to the relevancy of the exhibits and charges a tendency to inflame the minds of the jurors, whereas at trial, only the inflammatory aspect was relied upon. We, nevertheless, will consider the question as properly before us and proceed to its merits. Photographs are admissible to evidence anything that a witness might himself be permitted to testify to, if identified and verified by the witness. Hawkins v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 116, 37 N.E.2d 79. Relevant evidence will not be rejected simply because it is gruesome and cumulative. Feller v. State (1976), Ind., 348 N.E.2d 8. Relevance is the logical tendency of evidence to prove a material fact. Walker v. State (1976), Ind., 349 N.E.2d 161. The effect of a very prejudicial photograph on a jury must be weighed against its relevancy, and where the relevance is minimal and the prejudice to the particular theory of defense is great, to admit the photograph is reversible error. Carroll v. State (1975), Ind., 338 N.E.2d 264 (dissenting opinion at 273). However, the determination of relative merit lies within the province of the trial judge and, absent clear error, his decision should not be overridden. Carroll v. State, supra , (concurring opinion at page 274.) We have examined the exhibit in question and find no imbalance between its relevance and its tendency to influence the jury improperly. It depicts the decedent, naked from the waist upward, lying on a cot or stretcher, apparently in the morgue. Three gunshot wounds are apparent in the right arm and four in the face and head. The exhibit was relevant to show the cause of death and that the decedent and his assassin had met face to face at close range. Although the photograph is very unpleasant to view, it appears to depict the decedent essentially as he was immediately following his murder. We are unable to understand counsel's reference to Kiefer v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 103, 153 N.E.2d 899, and to his suggestion that the exhibit bears additional surgical scars from the autopsy or from attempts to restore life, as such is not the case.