Opinion ID: 1660825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Photographs in Evidence.

Text: In Neuenfeldt v. State [7] this court said: ... It is discretionary with the trial court to admit photographs to aid the jury in securing a clear idea of a material situation when the photographs better show that situation than does the testimony of witnesses. But where photographs are not substantially necessary or instructive to show material facts or conditions, and are of such a character as to arouse sympathy or indignation, or divert the minds of the jury to improper or irrelevant considerations, they should be excluded. [8] The photographs in question are three 8 × 10 color pictures of the plaintiff taken by a professional photographer approximately eight months after the accident. The three pictures are bust shots of the plaintiff taken from the front, right side, and right front positions. The evidence is undisputed that the photographs present an accurate portrayal of the boy's condition after the laceration had healed. Defendant Johannes argues that these photographs were not material and were introduced only to impassion and prejudice the jury. We do not agree. The trial judge, in ruling on the photographs' admissibility in chambers, noted: I have no feeling there is anything involved in these pictures that in any way could arouse the passions of the jury. They seem to me to be very innocuous, frankly. The receipt of the photographs was clearly within the trial court's discretion.