Court Opinion

ID: 9673877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:19:58.834343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:24.477697
License: Public Domain

KAROHL, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the holding that defendant, Richard Beck, is entitled to a new trial. I differ only in dicta saying admission of staged photographs, over objection, was not reversible error under the facts of this case.
The central contested fact in each trial of this case was whether arresting officers saw two packages containing marijuana in the automobile at the time defendant was arrested on traffic charges. The staged photographs support arresting officer’s testimony that two bags of marijuana were visible. The defense was that the marijuana was planted by an arresting officer after defendant and his passenger were removed from the vehicle. Photographs of the scene of an alleged crime are admissible only if they depict the conditions and circumstances surrounding the crime which throw light on a material issue in the case. State v. Wright, 632 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Mo.App.1982). In the present case defendant was arrested in St. Louis on January 13, 1985 at 6:45 in the evening. The arrest took place in the dark. The photographic exhibits were taken in broad daylight. Shadows indicate the sun was nearly overhead. The lighting conditions could not have been the same at the time the photographs were taken when compared with the circumstances of arrest. Items visible in daylight are not necessarily visible at night. The difference may be important because what the arresting officer could see in the dark was a factor in determining his credibility. On retrial it may be reversible error to admit photographs which depict different conditions and circumstances.