Opinion ID: 1720938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Use of the Skull as Evidence

Text: The Defendant next complains that pursuant to Rule 403 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, the skull of the victim should have been excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The Defendant asserts that the skull was also cumulative evidence because prior to its admission, numerous photographs of the skull were admitted to show the damage to the victim's head. The State argues that the introduction of the skull was an important portion of the medical testimony. The medical examiner testified that she had sent the skull to a forensic anthropologist to be reconstructed because she could not tell exactly what had happened without the reconstruction. The skull was used by the medical examiner to show the amount of force that was applied to it, as well as the weapon that was used. Pieces of asphalt were embedded in the skull. In this case, the skull had been thoroughly cleansed and was no more prejudicial or gruesome than a model diagram would have been. Dr. Elkins, the medical examiner, testified that the reconstructed skull would illustrate to the jury what had occurred to the victim and demonstrate the amount of force that was applied as well as the type of weapon used to inflict the head injuries. There is no question that the nature and type of injuries sustained by the deceased and the manner in which death occurred were relevant considerations by the jury. Moreover, the skull was used to illustrate that the piece of skull found in the Defendant's jacket fit perfectly into the reconstructed skull. The skull was, therefore, highly relevant in establishing the circumstances surrounding the offense. See State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 263 (Tenn.1994); cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1086, 115 S.Ct. 743, 130 L.Ed.2d 644 (1995); State v. Morris, 641 S.W.2d 883, 888 (Tenn.1982). This issue is without merit.