Court Opinion

ID: 9707953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:25:47.48368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:40.496623
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached hy the majority. I write separately to state my views about the use of photographic evidence.
As I stated in my dissent in People v. Phillips (1969), 20 Mich App 103, 117, aff'd (1971), 385 Mich 30, “even if the photographs in the present case had had probative value, they might still have been inadmissible because of the inflammatory nature of their content”. That statement applies to this case.
My brethren rely on 23 CJS, Criminal Law, § 852(1), pp 352, 353, which states in pertinent part: “The test of admissibility in such cases is whether the probative value of the photographs outweighs their probable prejudicial effect”. My brothers urge that the probative value of the photographs sufficiently outweighed their prejudicial effect in that they “clarified and illustrated” testimony relating to the victim’s appearance and condition immediately after death. That same reasoning has previously been used by this Court to approve the admission of gruesome photographs into evidence. People v. Eddington (1970), 23 Mich App 210, 228. I heartily disagree with that rationale.
To admit photographs on this basis would have the effect of nullifying the general rule as stated by CJS, supra. All photographs serve to “clarify and illustrate”. The rule enunciated by my colleagues is overbroad. There was nothing at issue here which justified the admission of the photographs. There was no issue as to the victim’s identity, his manner of death, or the defendant’s alleged malice. There was ample testimony on the record detailing the extent of the victim’s wounds. Whatever probative value these photographs may *113have had was outweighed by the possibility of their prejudicial effect. To allow such photographs into evidence whenever they “clarify and illustrate” testimony is to allow them into evidence under all circumstances. For numerous cases supporting the proposition here stated, see Anno., 73 ALR2d 769, 802.
I concur in the result because I am convinced, after reading the record, that the result would not have been different had the photographs been excluded.