Opinion ID: 1775413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the court err in allowing the introduction of photographs of the decedent?

Text: Mrs. Kniep objects to the admission of the pictures of the victim's body taken at the hospital on the grounds that the pictures were highly inflammatory and severely prejudiced the jury against her. To defend this position, Mrs. Kniep cited Hancock v. State, 47 So.2d 833 (Miss. 1950). This Court in Hancock found that the photographs must be ... pertinent, material and relevant as evidence. Id. at 833. Applying the rationale of Hancock to the case at bar, Mrs. Kniep argued that the photographs of Richard Kniep's body at the hospital provide no probative value. Nonetheless, the defendant fails to appreciate the relevancy of these photographs in connection with the main issue in this case. The new Mississippi Rules of Evidence 401-403 provide the guidelines for determining admissibility of photographs, which rules state: Rule 401. DEFINITION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE Relevant Evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 402. RELEVANT EVIDENCE GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE; IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, or by these rules. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Rule 403. EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON GROUNDS OF PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, OR WASTE OF TIME Although 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 undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Therefore, these rules direct that photographs are admissible when relevant; however, relevant evidence may be inadmissible when its probative value is outweighed by its tendency to mislead, to confuse, or to prejudice the jury. Comm., Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403. This issue, whether decedent died from blood loss or alcohol consumption, is the common nucleus of the lower court's proceedings. Therein, these photographs are highly relevant in depicting the decedent's wounds and lacerations. Taking the prejudicial nature of these pictures into account, Kelly v. State, 463 So.2d 1070 (Miss. 1985) states, This Court has repeatedly held that the fact that a photograph of the deceased in a homicide case might arouse the emotions of the jurors, does not of itself render it incompetent evidence as long as its introduction serves some useful evidentiary purpose. Id. at 1074. Although a pre-rule case, this rationale is applicable here. Stevens v. State, 458 So.2d 726 (Miss. 1984) reinforces this Court's view on photographs. Stevens, as well as the case sub judice, involves a very similar factual situation. In Stevens, this Court held: In the case sub judice, the trial court was of the opinion that photographs were probative on the issue of the manner of death. In addition, the photographs tended to corroborate the use of a firepoker as the murder weapon and established both the multiplicity of blows administered and the extent of force and violence used. 458 So.2d at 729. Along these lines, the photographs in the case at bar show the extent of the decedent's surface injuries. Therefore, they are essential to the main issue in the case; and this Court holds that the photo introduction serves a useful evidentiary purpose. This Court holds no error in their admission.