Opinion ID: 1638526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of gruesome photographs of the victims.

Text: ¶ 71. Chamberlin argues that, over her objections, the trial court admitted thirteen prejudicial photographs, each of which she alleges had no probative value. The State replies that each photograph was relevant, as it aided in describing the circumstances of the killings or causes of death, or clarifying or supplementing the witness's testimony to the jury. ¶ 72. Chamberlin cites Sudduth v. State, 562 So.2d 67, 70 (Miss.1990), for this Court's statement that photographs of the victim should not ordinarily be admitted into evidence where the killing is not contradicted or denied, and the corpus delicti and the identity of the deceased have been established. Id. at 70. (citing Davis, 551 So.2d at 173; Shearer v. State, 423 So.2d 824, 827 (Miss.1982)). However, Chamberlin ignores the declaration immediately following in which the Court stated, [p]hotographs of bodies may nevertheless be admitted into evidence in criminal cases where they have probative value and where they are not so gruesome or used in such a way as to be overly prejudicial or inflammatory. Sudduth, 562 So.2d at 70 (citing Davis, 551 So.2d at 173; Griffin v. State, 504 So.2d 186, 191 (Miss.1987); Miss. R. Evid. 403). ¶ 73. Admission of photographs by the trial court is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Dampier v. State, 973 So.2d 221, 230 (Miss.2008). A decision favoring admissibility will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that judicial discretion. Id. The discretion of the trial judge is almost unlimited . . . regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value. Id. (quoting Williams v. State, 544 So.2d 782, 785 (Miss.1987)). See also Bennett v. State, 933 So.2d 930, 946 (Miss.2006); Jones v. State, 920 So.2d 465, 476 (Miss. 2006); McIntosh v. State, 917 So.2d 78, 83-84 (Miss.2005); Dubose v. State, 919 So.2d 5, 11 (Miss.2005); Blake v. Clein, 903 So.2d 710, 728 (Miss.2005); Hodges v. State, 912 So.2d 730, 781 (Miss.2005). Some probative value is the only requirement needed in order to support a trial judge's decision to admit photographs into evidence. Jones, 920 So.2d at 476-477 (quoting Jordan v. State, 728 So.2d 1088, 1094 (Miss.1998) (quoting Scott v. State, 878 So.2d 933, 985 (Miss.2004), overruled in part by Lynch v. State, 951 So.2d 549 (Miss.2007)); McIntosh v. State, 917 So.2d at 84. 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. Dampier, 973 So.2d at 230 (citations omitted). But see McNeal v. State, 551 So.2d 151 (Miss.1989)) (the solitary instance where this Court held a photograph, a close-up of the victim's partly decomposed skull, was gruesome and lacked an evidentiary purpose and was more prejudicial than probative). A photograph has a meaningful evidentiary purpose when it: (1) aids in describing the circumstances of the killing; (2) describes the location of the body or cause of death; or (3) supplements or clarifies witness testimony. Dampier, 973 So.2d at 230. ¶ 74. Similarly, autopsy photographs are admissible only if they possess probative value. Hodges, 912 So.2d at 781-82 (citing Puckett v. State, 737 So.2d 322, 338 (Miss.1999); Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298 (Miss.1993)). The comment to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 401 states that if there is any probative value, the rule favors admission of the evidence. Thorson, 895 So.2d at 120. ¶ 75. The State cites Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 485 (Miss.2001). In Simmons, the defendant gutted, beheaded, and dismembered the victim and discarded the parts in a bayou. Simmons, 805 So.2d at 470. The defense argued that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a photograph of the victim's severed head. Id. at 485. This Court stated the aforementioned test that [p]hotographs of the victim have evidentiary value when they aid in describing the circumstances of the killing, the location of the body, the cause of death, or clarify or supplement a witness's testimony. Simmons, 805 So.2d at 485 (citation omitted). ¶ 76. In Simmons, the State used the photograph in question numerous times. Id. at 485. Once, an officer used it to identify the victim's head. Id. To the defendant's objection, the State responded that it needed the photograph to identify the flesh found in the bayou as human, and specifically, as belonging to the victim. Id. The judge overruled the objection and the photo was entered into evidence. Id. at 486. The State again used the photograph when questioning the victim's girlfriend. Id. at 486. She positively identified the head in the photograph as that of the victim's. Id. This Court held that [s]ince the discretion of the trial judge runs toward unlimited admissibility, it is impossible for this Court to say that the trial judge abused his discretion. Id. at 486. ¶ 77. Of the thirteen photographs in question in this case, two depicted the bodies as they were found at the Gillett farm. Exhibit 48 showed Hullett's body in the top of the freezer, and Exhibit 49 showed Heintzelman's body after removal from the freezer, still wrapped in a blanket as it had appeared in the bottom of the freezer upon thawing. The State entered the photographs during the testimony of a KBI officer who was describing what he saw at the crime scene. He testified that the photographs aided him in explaining what he saw. ¶ 78. The remaining ten photographs were taken during the autopsies performed by Dr. Donald Pojman. Dr. Pojman chose these photographs from his file for the purpose of helping him explain the injuries about which he would testify to the jury. Dr. Pojman testified as to each photograph that it was either necessary or would aid him in explaining to the jury the injuries he found. Each photograph varied in its depiction of scratches, scrapes and lacerations on various parts of each victim's body, including on Hullett's disarticulated arms; stab wounds and long cuts on Heintzelman's back; and lacerations and holes in each victim's head from hammer-inflicted injuries. The trial court admitted each photograph over the defendant's objection that the photographs were inflammatory, that their probative value was outweighed by their inflammatory nature, and that the photographs [went] beyond any probative necessity. ¶ 79. The question as to each photograph is whether it: (1) had probative value and (2) aided in described the circumstances of the killing, described the location of the body and cause of death, or supplemented or clarified witness testimony. As in Simmons, each picture to which the defense objected satisfied both of these requirements. See Simmons, 805 So.2d at 485-86. In order to exclude any photograph, the trial court would have been required to find as to any particular photograph that, pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403, the probative value of such photograph was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. With Rule 403 and the record in this case squarely before us, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing these photographs to be admitted into evidence; therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.