Court Opinion

ID: 9652180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:20:30.403345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:49.229809
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the Court that the photographs and clothing in this case were properly admitted into evidence. Unfortunately, however, the majority opinion has once again misstated the applicable law. Compare, e. g., Commonwealth v. Hilton, 461 Pa. 93, 98-99, 334 A.2d 648, 651 (1975) (opinion announcing the decision of the Court), with id. 461 Pa. at 99, 334 A.2d at 651 (concurring opinion of Pomeroy, J., joined by Jones, C. J., and Eagen, O’Brien and Nix, JJ.).
In stating that a court, in deciding whether to admit into evidence a photograph of a corpse, must balance “the necessarily inflammatory nature of this evidence against its ‘essential evidentiary value,’ ” opinion of the Court ante at-, the majority misapprehends the teaching of a case it mistakenly cites in support of that proposition, Commonwealth v. Petrakovich, 459 Pa. 511, 329 A.2d 844 (1974). In Petrakovich, we stated that the “[a] photograph of a corpse is not inflammatory per se . . . it is generally the manner in which a corpse is displayed that causes photographs to be *340emotionally charged.” Id. 459 Pa. at 522, 329 A.2d at 849. That is quite different from stating that such a photograph is “necessarily inflammatory.” Moreover, we held in Petrakovich that a court should deal with such photographs through a two-tiered analysis. The court’s first task is to determine whether the photograph is inflammatory. If it is not, and if it is relevant, it is admissible just as is any other evidence that has probative value on a material issue. If, however, the photograph is found to be inflammatory, the court should proceed to the second step of the Petrakovich test and balance the evidentiary value of the photograph against “ ‘the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors.’ ” Id. 459 Pa. at 521, 329 A.2d at 849, quoting Commonwealth v. Powell, 428 Pa. 275, 279, 241 A.2d 119, 121 (1968). See also Commonwealth v. Hilton, supra, 461 Pa. at 100, 334 A.2d at 652.1
In the case at bar there was no need whatever for the trial court to proceed to the second step. Here the photographs were black-and-white and showed only the victim’s chest and two knife wounds that had been cleaned of almost all blood. Given the issue of whether the victim was deliberately stabbed twice or was killed accidentally in a struggle, the photographs were manifestly relevant to resolve a factual question in dispute and to indicate that the killing was intentional.2
The majority compounds its analytical error when it asserts that the second part of the Petrakovich test must also *341be applied, ab initio, to a blood-stained shirt. No reason is advanced as to why the presence of dried blood on an item of real evidence renders it per se inflammatory, probably because there is no more basis for such an assumption with respect to demonstrative evidence than there is for such an assumption relative to a photograph of a corpse. Here again the evidence was relevant to show the relation of the hole created by the knife to the wounds in the chest. Yet the opinion of Mr. Justice ROBERTS ignores the proper evidentiary test — whether the exhibit is relevant — and the sound discretion of the trial court in applying the test. In Commonwealth v. Chavis, 357 Pa. 158, 170, 53 A.2d 96, 102, cert. denied, 332 U.S. 811, 68 S.Ct. 104, 92 L.Ed. 389 (1947), we said: “A careful judge will not admit such evidence when it has no relevancy to any issue in the case and when the purpose of its admission is obviously to stir up the emotions of the jurors.” That remains the standard today, the majority’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Garnett, 458 Pa. 4, 7, 326 A.2d 355 (1974).3
Once a photograph is found by the trial judge to be of an inflammatory nature, it makes sense to balance the evidentiary value of the proffered exhibit against the possibility of prejudice because of its effect on the jury. It should not be overlooked, however, as Mr. Justice ROBERTS’ opinion does, that in gauging the possibility of prejudice, the court should bear in mind the role that cautionary instructions can play by way of forewarning the jury that what it will see is distasteful and unpleasant, but that these qualities are not to sway the judgment of the jury as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Such instructions, by focusing the jury’s attention on the reasons for which evidence is admitted, would go far to neutralize any emotional or prejudicial impact the photograph might have: See Shaffer, Judges, *342Repulsive Evidence and the Ability to Respond, 43 Notre Dame Law, 403, 509-10 (1968).
In a world where violence is depressingly common and the results of violence are often portrayed, and sometimes seemingly extolled by the news and entertainment media, I am unable to understand by what logic we must deem jurors to be as squeamish, susceptible to shock, and irrational as the majority apparently deems them to be. More important, however, is the majority’s reluctance to sanction the use of a type of evidence that often speaks better than most witnesses can to crucial factual issues that juries sit to decide, as I think the photographs did in this case. Many of the results of homicide are distinctly unpleasant, but the jury must have evidence as probative as can be found to enable it to decide properly whether an accused is criminally responsible for those results. The majority’s apparent assumptions that jurors will forget about the presumption of innocence upon seeing a photograph of a corpse, and that, even if aided by trial court instructions, they will not be able to view such evidence and do their work dispassionately, are patronizing notions that I do not share.

. Thus in Commonwealth v. Garrison, 459 Pa. 664, 331 A.2d 186 (1975), obviously inflammatory color slides of the deceased had little value in a case where an intentional killing was clearly shown by the defendant’s own statement and other testimony, and the only real issue was insanity. After applying the Petrakovich test, this Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice NIX, ordered a new trial. See also Commonwealth v. Powell, supra, 428 Pa. at 279, 241 A.2d at 121 (“a clear felony murder case where the force used and the nature and extent of the injuries have no bearing in a finding of . . . felony murder.”).

. Similarly, the black-and-white photograph of the victim’s heart, showing the extent of the wounds, was relevant to show a deliberate killing and the length of the knife used, another issue at trial.

. Commonwealth v. Yount, 455 Pa. 303, 317, 314 A.2d 242, 250 (1974), provides no support for the majority’s view, for a similar assertion in Yount relied on Commonwealth v. Ford, 451 Pa. 81, 85, 301 A.2d 856, 857-58 (1973). Ford, however, enunciated a relevance standard that emphasized the discretion of the trial judge, and held that a knife that had not been positively identified as the murder weapon had been properly admitted into evidence.