Court Opinion

ID: 9774202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:11:06.740589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:03.368110
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. The introduction of some of these photographs served absolutely no purpose other than to arouse the passion and prejudice of the jury. I do not understand how the colored photographs of the blood and of the autopsy procedures assisted the jury in understanding the testimony of any witness or assisted any witness in presenting his testimony. The facts of the case were not disputed, and there was never any need for much of an investigation. The appellant called the sheriff and reported that he had killed these two men. When the sheriff arrived at the scene of the crime, the appellant gave them the gun that he had used and explained how he had murdered the victims. Each was shot once in the chest by the appellant with a shotgun. The shots fired by the appellant killed the men instantaneously. If the photographs were of any assistance to the jury, which they were not, then the less gruesome photographs would have been adequate. The majority misses the issue by stating that the trial court excluded pictures which were duplicative. I interpret this to mean that he excluded duplicate representations of the inflammatory photographs. The opinion fails to point out how the pictures aided the presentation of testimony to the jury or the jury’s understanding of any relevant evidence. In Berry v. State, 290 Ark. 223, 718 S.W.2d 447 (1986), we analyzed and re-examined our position relating to the introduction of inflammatory photographs and stated: The analysis should firmly emphasize the need for the trial court to carefully weigh the probative value of the photographs against their prejudicial nature, rather than promoting a general rule of admissibility which essentially allows automatic acceptance of all the photographs of the victim and the crime scene the prosecution can offer. It appears that such reasoning is limited to the Berry case; the majority opinion in the present case certainly does not follow the same logic. The courts should scrupulously honor the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Unusually repulsive and gruesome pictures should not be used when their relevance is slight, and the prejudice is great. If there is no significant relevance to an issue, then the primary purpose for their introduction can only be to inflame and arouse the passions and prejudices of the jury. Often bodies are moved or repositioned for the purpose of taking photographs for presentation to the jury. Two of the photographs in question are of such inflammatory nature that I believe a stranger could have been placed in the defendant’s chair and the jury would have convicted him after viewing the pictures. One picture is worth a thousand words—especially if it is gruesome and gory. When Berry was decided I had hoped that we were going to take a straightforward and practical approach in matters relating to the introduction of photographs in criminal cases. However, it appears that we are now back to our old rule which is essentially that introduction of photographs is not subject to review on appeal. Each such decision invites the state to present even more gruesome photographs in the next trial. The danger of allowing the introduction of such photographs is that such evidence will be substituted for the direct proof required to establish that the accused committed the crime. Courts and prosecutors sometimes fail to recognize that pictures frequently present a false impression. My fears are based upon statements by this Court such as were made in Burnett v. State, 287 Ark. 158, 697 S.W.2d 95 (1985), where the court stated: “In this case the photographs were obviously a strong part of the state’s direct evidence, and we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court.” Indeed they probably were—and will continue to be in the future. Hopefully, photographs will not become the chief record on appeal. The introduction of the irrelevant and prejudicial photographs in this case was as senseless as was the crime. Truthfulness and fair play demand the exclusion of these morbid pictures.