Court Opinion

ID: 9673658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:16:09.966532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.379771
License: Public Domain

HEFLIN, Chief Justice (dissenting) :
The photograph of the deceased .was' taken on a slab with the head of the deceased shaved. There are. markings on the skull which appear to' be section ' and quarter markings in preparation for- a.n. a.utopsy. The photograph depicts a bullet hole centered in his forehead (which apparently would not have been hidden by his hair). There were material alterations in the appearance of the deceased from the condition that he was in following the incident of his death. Objections were also made pertaining to the remoteness of time from his death and the time that the photograph, was taken. It would appear that the State had ample time to procure a picture of the deceased before his hair was removed and before he was apparently marked for autopsy. The picture is highly prejudicial and gives the appearance of .a ghoul in a horror movie rather than an actual fair representation of how the deceased would have looked at the time of death.
I am well aware of the decisions that hold that gruesomeness is not a ground for excluding photographs of the deceased in a homicide prosecution even when they tend to inflame the minds of the jury, if they have probative value on a material issue. Palmore v. State, 283 Ala. 501, 218 So.2d, 830; Baldwin v. State, 282 Ala. 653, 213 So.2d 819. However, in'-this -case'-highly prejudicial alterations were- made on the *686body of the deceased and such alterations fail to serve any useful purpose in connection with the bullet hole. I fail to find a case where a photograph was admitted after prejudicial alterations were made to the body of a deceased and the prejudicial alterations served no helpful purpose to explain or show a material condition.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.