Court Opinion

ID: 9964555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 14:12:05.814299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:34.910695
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                        San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                          No. 04-21-00482-CR

                                        Vincent Jeffrey SEARD,
                                               Appellant

                                                   v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                      From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
                                      Trial Court No. A21432
                          Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Irene Rios, Justice

Sitting:          Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
                  Irene Rios, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 24, 2024

AFFIRMED

           A jury convicted appellant Vincent Jeffrey Seard of capital murder, and he received an

automatic life-without-parole sentence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.31(b)(2),

19.03(a)(7)(A). In two issues, Seard challenges the admission of crime scene photographs and

autopsy photographs. We affirm.

                                            BACKGROUND

           Seard was charged with capital murder after brutally killing Terry Ingram and Patricia Ann

Kutzer (sometimes respectfully referred to collectively as “the victims”) in 2003. Seard had never
                                                                                       04-21-00482-CR

met Mr. Ingram or Mrs. Kutzer before encountering them at the Kutzer’s ranch outside Comfort,

Texas. Mr. Ingram kept pigs out at the Kutzer’s ranch and on the day of his murder, he went to the

ranch to pick up some pigs to sell. When Mr. Ingram did not return to Comfort in a timely fashion,

his son went out to the Kutzer’s ranch where he found his father and Mrs. Kutzer bludgeoned to

death, with Mrs. Kutzer lying on top of his father.

       Seard had strewn various pictures and other items from inside the Kutzer home around the

victims. Seard also placed a poster with his picture on it beside the victims and left personal items,

including photographs, posters with his image and name, his driver’s license, and clothing inside

the Kutzer home. Seard left his dog at the Kutzer ranch and drove away. Seard was eventually

arrested in California and confessed. He provided the horrific details of Mr. Ingram’s and Mrs.

Kutzer’s murders.

       According to Seard, after exiting the nearby highway and ending up at the Kutzer home,

he later encountered Mr. Ingram near a gate in the front of the house. Mr. Ingram asked Seard what

he was doing on the property and told Seard he needed to leave. Seard then attacked Mr. Ingram,

beating him with his fist, a skillet, and a rock. Seard then dragged Mr. Ingram by a dog chain to

the driveway, ran over him with a truck, placed his t-shirt over Mr. Ingram’s face, and shoved a

knife with a dead bird into Mr. Ingram’s mouth. Seard then explained when Mrs. Kutzer arrived

at her house, she saw Mr. Ingram lying on the ground and asked Seard what happened. Seard then

attacked Mrs. Kutzer by her car. Seard beat Mrs. Kutzer with a brick and then dragged her to Mr.

Ingram’s body and laid her on top of Mr. Ingram. Seard placed the handle of the skillet he used to

beat Mr. Ingram down the back of Mrs. Kutzer’s pants.

       Initially, Seard was declared incompetent to stand trial. Following the restoration of his

competency years later, he stood trial for capital murder. The jury found Seard guilty. Because the

                                                 -2-
                                                                                      04-21-00482-CR

State waived the death penalty, the trial court assessed Seard with an automatic life-without-parole

sentence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.31(b)(2).

       Seard appeals. Seard contends in two identical issues that the trial court abused its

discretion in admitting crime scene and autopsy photographs because, under Rule 403 of the Texas

Rules of Evidence, the photographs’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of

unfair prejudice. See TEX. R. EVID. 403.

                                      STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion.

Henley v. State, 493 S.W.3d 77, 82–83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). A trial court abuses its discretion

if the decision falls outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id. at 83. Before we may overrule

a trial court’s evidentiary decision, we must hold that the trial court’s ruling was so clearly wrong

as to lie outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. Id.

                                        APPLICABLE LAW

       A trial court has considerable discretion when ruling on the admissibility of photographs.

See Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); see also Shuffield v. State,

189 S.W.3d 782, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “A photograph is relevant if it has 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.” Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715,

751 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (citing TEX. R. EVID. 401) (internal citations omitted).

       Texas Rule of Evidence 403 provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of “unfair prejudice, confusing the

issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” TEX. R.

EVID. 403; see also Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). “Rule 403 favors

                                                -3-
                                                                                                       04-21-00482-CR

the admission of relevant evidence and carries a presumption that relevant evidence will be more

probative than prejudicial.” Hayes v. State, 85 S.W.3d 809, 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

           Relevant factors in determining whether the probative value is outweighed by the danger

of unfair prejudice in admitting photographs include: “the number of exhibits offered, their

gruesomeness, their detail, their size, whether they are in color or black and white, whether they

are close-up, [] whether the body depicted is clothed or naked[,]” as well as the availability of other

means of proof and the unique circumstances of each case. Young, 283 S.W.3d at 874; see

Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641–42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (providing factors 1 a trial

court must consider in conducting a Rule 403 balancing test); Fields v. State, 515 S.W.3d 47, 56

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, no pet.).

           Photographs are generally admissible if verbal testimony about the matters depicted in the

photographs is also admissible. Young, 283 S.W.3d at 875. A visual image of injuries inflicted on

a victim by an appellant is evidence relevant to a jury’s determination. See Gallo v. State, 239

S.W.3d 757, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

admitting twenty-three autopsy photographs of the unclothed deceased three-year-old victim

depicting over 200 contusions and lacerations and additional internal autopsy examination

photographs depicting the child’s cracked ribs, fractured skull, and brain injuries that could not be

1
    When undertaking a Rule 403 analysis, we balance the following factors:

           (1) the inherent probative force of the proffered item of evidence along with (2) the proponent’s
           need for that evidence against (3) any tendency of the evidence to suggest decision on an improper
           basis, (4) any tendency of the evidence to confuse or distract the jury from the main issues, (5) any
           tendency of the evidence to be given undue weight by a jury that has not been equipped to evaluate
           the probative force of the evidence, and (6) the likelihood that presentation of the evidence will
           consume an inordinate amount of time or merely repeat evidence already admitted.

Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637, 641–42 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                                           -4-
                                                                                       04-21-00482-CR

seen from the external photographs). “The fact that the jury also hear[s] testimony regarding the

injuries depicted does not reduce the relevance of the visual depiction.” Id.

                                  CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS

       In his first issue, Seard contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting several of

the State’s crime scene photographs because the probative value of the evidence was substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

       While we recognize crime scene photographs contain graphic imagery, merely because a

photograph is gruesome does not render it inadmissible. See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d

230, 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Gruesome crime scene photographs that depict a disagreeable

reality simply depict the reality of the crime committed. See id. A trial court does not err by

admitting photographs that are gruesome, rather, it is a matter of balancing the probative value

against unfair prejudice. Id.; Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)

(holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gruesome photographs of the

charred victims and their gunshot wounds because the photographs depicted the realities of the

crime committed and the efforts to cover up the crime).

       The trial court held a Rule 403 hearing regarding the admissibility of the crime scene

photographs, State’s Exhibits 16-103. See TEX. R. EVID. 403. In objecting to the crime scene

photographs, Seard described them as “incredibly gruesome, very bloody, [and] very difficult to

look at[.]” Seard complained the State had a “multitude” of crime scene photographs that were

repetitious and cumulative. Furthermore, Seard objected to the admission of the select crime scene

photographs, asserting “the risk of unfair prejudice greatly outweighs [their] probative value[.]”

       The trial court conducted its 403 balancing test and found the probative value of the crime

scene photographs outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice or the needless presentation of

                                                 -5-
                                                                                      04-21-00482-CR

cumulative evidence. See TEX. R. EVID. 403. Specifically, the trial court noted that “the State has

narrowed and selected an appropriate number of photographs,” and it overruled Seard’s objection.

       Here, the complained of crime scene photographs are in color and show the victims as law

enforcement found them. The photographs are from different distances and angles, including

close-up ranges. The photographs show the full extent of both victims’ numerous and significant

injuries and other evidence Seard purposely placed around the victims. Because Mrs. Kutzer was

found on top of Mr. Ingram, some of the photographs also depict the individual victims by

themselves, being uncovered, rolled over to show further injuries, and being prepped for later

transport. Some of the pictures also show the rock, the brick, and the dog chain used to drag Mr.

Ingram.

       The identities of the victims and the manner and means of death are facts that are of

consequence to the determination of the action, which support the admissibility of these crime

scene photographs. Penry, 903 S.W.2d at 751 (citing Long v. State, 823 S.W.2d 259, 271 n.18

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). Moreover, Seard confessed to committing the murders, and photographs

that corroborate an appellant’s confession have also been deemed relevant. See Penry, 903 S.W.2d

at 751; see also Long, 823 S.W.2d at 273. The photographs here are consistent with Seard’s

confession of the murders.

       Furthermore, while some of the crime scene photographs are taken at close range and others

are not, some photographs are from different angles or vantage points and thus are not cumulative.

See Matamoros v. State, 901 S.W.2d 470, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (overruling argument that

photographs were cumulative of video evidence; “Close-up photographs and photographs taken

from different vantage points add to the jury’s understanding of the condition of the crime scene.”);

Williams v. State, 294 S.W.3d 674, 686 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d)

(concluding photograph not cumulative because it showed injuries from a side view while other

                                                -6-
                                                                                       04-21-00482-CR

photographs showed frontal view); Woods v. State, 14 S.W.3d 445, 452–53 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 2000, no pet.) (determining photograph not cumulative because it showed injuries to the

child from a different angle, closer up, and clearer compared to another admitted photograph);

Williams v. State, 930 S.W.2d 898, 902 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d)

(concluding photograph not cumulative because it showed injuries clearer than other photographs).

       After applying the appropriate factors, we cannot conclude the photographs are

unnecessarily cumulative or that the probative value of the crime scene photographs is outweighed

by the danger of unfair prejudice. See TEX. R. EVID. 403; see also Young, 283 S.W.3d at 874;

Matamoros, 901 S.W.2d at 476; Fields, 515 S.W.3d at 56. Accordingly, the trial court did not

abuse its discretion in admitting the crime scene photographs. See Penry, 903 S.W.2d at 752.

       We overrule Seard’s first issue.

                                     AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS

       In his second issue, Seard argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the State’s

nine autopsy photographs because the probative value of this evidence was substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

       Prior to the testimony of Bexar County Medical Examiner Dr. Elizabeth Peacock, the trial

court held a Rule 403 hearing regarding the admissibility of autopsy photographs. See TEX. R.

EVID. 403. Seard objected to the admission of the State’s nine autopsy photographs claiming the

medical examiner’s testimony that the injuries sustained by the victims caused their death would

sufficiently apprise the jury. Seard further argued the photographs were inflammatory, highly

prejudicial, and cumulative. The trial court conducted its 403 balancing test and found the

probative value of the autopsy photographs outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice. See id.

       “Autopsy photographs are generally admissible unless they depict mutilation of the victim

caused by the autopsy itself.” Fields, 515 S.W.3d at 57 (citing Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675,

                                                 -7-
                                                                                                    04-21-00482-CR

690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). Autopsy photographs introduced to assist the medical examiner in

explaining the injuries to the victim contribute to their admissibility. See Williams, 301 S.W.3d at

692–93. Dr. Peacock used the autopsy photographs to explain the victims’ injuries and causes of

death. The State’s nine autopsy photographs are color photographs depicting the victims’ bodies

lying on the examining table in the condition they arrived from the scene and after they had been

cleaned for the autopsy. Most of the photographs reveal the victims’ facial and head wounds at

varying angles and distances. Some photographs show the head wounds after some of the hair had

been shaved, and a couple of the photographs include portions of a ruler to measure the wounds.

Although the autopsy photographs are undeniably gruesome, they demonstrate elements of the

offense the State was required to prove to obtain a conviction. See Fields, 515 S.W.3d at 57.

         We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the nine autopsy

photographs. Considering the factors listed in Young, as well as the circumstances particular to

this case, we conclude the nine autopsy photographs show the nature of the crime and were not so

prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value. Young, 283 S.W.3d at 874.

         We overrule Seard’s second issue.

                                                  CONCLUSION

         Having overruled both of Seard’s appellate issues, we affirm the trial court’s final

judgment. 2

                                                          Irene Rios, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

2
  Seard has filed numerous documents, including letters, various requests, and arguably motions and a pro-se brief,
throughout the pendency of his appeal. But Seard does not have a right to hybrid representation. Scheanette v. State,
144 S.W.3d 503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); see also Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272, 280 (Tex. Crim. App.
1977) (defining hybrid representation as “representation partially pro se and partially by counsel”). Nor does he have
a constitutional right to represent himself on direct appeal. Scheanette, 144 S.W.3d at 505 n.2. Thus, we will not
address Seard’s pro se filings.

                                                        -8-