Court Opinion

ID: 9858626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:34:13.995423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:12.009987
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
While I agree with my brother McDON-ALD that this Court, including the writer in his early opinion prepared for the Court in Cantrell v. State, supra, (1951), 156 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 242 S.W.2d 387, has been far from consistent in our holdings concerning the admissibility of pictures of the scene of the crime where blood abounds and of the body of the deceased in murder cases are shown. I further agree that malice is no proper predicate for the introduction of such pictures in cases where death does ensue, but I am still unable to agree to the affirmance of this conviction. I have examined this record with care to determine if the introduction of the pictures might be justified by appellant’s testimony, but have failed to find therein sufficient justification for the- admission of these lurid and ghastly pictures of this deceased almost completely decapitated. In fact they show the work of an imperfectly functioning guillotine.
At the time the colored pictures were admitted the testimony of the pathologist had *699not been challenged nor had he been vigorously cross examined. He had testified that the deceased had sustained four fatal wounds including the neck wound which left “ * * * the head literally hanging loosely, attached only to the back side; the front side was completely severed.” In addition to this Officer Klevenhagen had testified, without any attempt on the part of the defense to refute it, that deceased’s “ * * * throat was cut from ear to ear. It was barely holding his head on * * * The only thing that held his head on when we put it on the stretcher is that I had to take my hand and hold it, to keep it from falling off the body.” Appellant had admitted that he had cut the deceased prior to the introduction of the pictures.
It must be remembered that we do not have here just another witness describing the condition of the body of the deceased, but are here dealing with another medium of proof. These are colored and black and white photographs handed to the jury just before they retired to decide whether or not this appellant should live or die, which photographs would make the producers of the Frankenstein films hang their heads in shame. These photographs shed no light upon any disputed issue in this case which had been fully developed to a point where no rational jury would acquit and served the sole purpose of shocking the jury so deeply that they were rendered incapable of exercising cool reflection in deciding whether life imprisonment or death would be the proper punishment.
I respectfully dissent.