Court Opinion

ID: 9661051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:27:49.033346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:24.981804
License: Public Domain

Lyle BrowN, 7 ?tice, dissenting. I would reverse as to the judgment iavoring Jackie L. Hamilton. Four gruesome colored pictures, taken shortly after the accident and when she was unconscious, were admitted in evidence. Substantial portions of her face were caked with blood. Two of the four exhibits are identical. All four pictures are very similar. The trial judge admitted the exhibits were inflammatory but ruled they were not prejudicial. They were shown to the jury on a projector. The trial court concededly had wide latitude in determining the admissibility of the pictures. Had it admitted one and rejected the others we might well have a different situation. But the four inflammatory pictures of such striking similarity served no legitimate, purpose, the inescapable result being that fuel was added to the flame of sympathy, and prejudice was certain to follow. It is my decided view that the trial court abused its discretion. Harris, C. J., joins in this dissent.