Court Opinion

ID: 9852984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:40:35.464644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:39.007596
License: Public Domain

Abbott, J.,
dissenting: I dissent from that part of the majority opinion holding the trial court erred in admitting autopsy photographs into evidence and granting a new trial on die basis that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence.
*709I also dissent from the majority's holding that “the evidence which has been brought to the court's attention does not support a finding that Adam intentionally took the cap.” Even the most serious offense can be proven by circumstantial evidence. The evidence in this case is sufficient to support a jury verdict of guilty of aggravated robbery. I agree with the majority that the instruction is reversible error because it omits the question of intent.
As to the autopsy pictures, they are no more gruesome than other autopsy pictures and, in fact, are less gruesome than most. We have held it was not error to introduce autopsy pictures in literally hundreds of cases. Only once has this court held it was error, and that case is cited by the majority. Although that case has been cited to this court countless times, it has never been followed. This same date we are affirming a case on this issue where the autopsy picture was every bit as gruesome and also included a view of the victim's head (which is not in the pictures before us). State v. Arteaga, 257 Kan. 874, 896 P.2d 1035 (1995).
I ask of the majority, is an autopsy photograph admissible in evidence or not? If not, let us tell the prosecutors and not leave them guessing and forced to risk retrying a case. No valid distinction can be drawn between a case reversed because autopsy pictures were introduced and one in which a guilty verdict is affirmed where autopsy pictures even more gruesome were introduced. Prosecutors will also be confused by the majority holding that the photos cannot be used on retrial. They may become even more relevant on retrial depending on the evidence presented. At a minimum, the trial court should be given discretion on retrial.
Here the autopsy pictures show the force and number of wounds. It demonstrates that while the victim was alive, he was disemboweled and his heart was severed from its main artery. While the autopsy picture is gruesome, so was the manner of the victim’s death.
I would hold that the trial court did not err in admitting the autopsy pictures into evidence.
I would also affirm the second-degree murder conviction. I stress that the defendant bears the burden of showing reversible *710error. Here, the defendant, in my opinion, fails to meet that burden.
It is important to keep in mind what this case is about. This is not a newly-discovered evidence case. The majority recognizes this. This, the majority holds, is a case where the prosecution suppressed evidence by not disclosing it to the defendant and the failure to disclose prejudiced the defendant. I disagree on both points.
This is not a situation where knowledge of the existence of exculpatory evidence or possible leads thereto was withheld by the prosecution. The defendant told the deputy about the lump on his head and was obviously aware the deputy had photographed his head. The majority penalizes the prosecution for the “suppression” of evidence of which the defendant already had knowledge. Defendant and his counsel knew of the lump and its importance to the defense. Testimony was introduced by the defense at trial concerning the lump. The defendant so testified as did one of his witnesses, both describing the lump in their testimony.
The defendant also knew the deputy had photographed his head, and he had told the deputy about the lump. The prosecutor had an open file policy, and a report in the prosecutors file reads as follows:
“On 012493, at approximately 7:00 PM, I took four photographs of Scotty Adam to check for possible scratches, bruises and abrasions on his head, shoulders and neck. I took one front facial and neck, 1 right side head neck & shoulders, 1 back of head, neck and shoulders and 1 left side head, neck and shoulders.
“At this time I did not observe any of the above. I also asked Scotty Adam if he had airy scratches, bruises or abrasions anywhere else on him. He replied no but he did have a bump on his forehead. Scotty showed it to me. Part of it was on his forehead and the rest of it was above the hairline on his head.
“The photographs were sent in to be developed. When they came back the photographs were all printed on one exposure frame, malfunction of the 35 mm camera. As a result I have no photographs of Scotty Adam’s head, neck and shoulders.
“This is all the information I have at this time.” (Underlining supplied.)
The following morning, the defendant was taken to a medical doctor for the express purpose of checking the defendant’s head for any signs of bumps, bruises, scratches, or abrasions. The doctor testified that the defendant told her he had been “hit on the head.” *711She testified she found no bumps, bruises, abrasions, or loose teeth. The doctor did find a contusion above the left hip that measured one-half by one centimeter.
Any lump the defendant had on his forehead that was observed by the deputy was so small that a medical doctor who was specifically looking for it could not find any evidence of it 17 hours after the deputy observed it. The deputy was not called by the defendant, who has the burden of proof, to describe what he observed. Whatever it was, it was not much if it disappeared without a trace in 17 hours and without any treatment or care.
There is more. The victim’s hands were checked in the autopsy and no scratches or bruises were found; this fact would indicate he did not strike the defendant on the head. The victim also had no defensive wounds from which a juiy could find he had warning of the knife attack.
I also note the defendant had four book-in photos taken of him when he was booked into jail within hours after the knifing. They are not included in the record on appeal but would have shown the area of the defendant’s head in question. The trial court observed these photos at the hearing on the motion for retrial. The appellant has the burden of furnishing a record showing error.
The trial judge in denying a new trial commented as follows:
“First of all, the Court was presented with motions for new trial due to the uncovering of new evidence which was not provided to the defense hr response to discovery request. I want to note that there is some question in the Court’s mind as to whether or not this evidence, which I’ll call the Leeson report, is in fact new evidence as thus defined by statute in that the defendant certainly knew he’d been photographed, apparently told Mr. Graham that, and that those photos might have shown the bump or bruise he had on his head the night of the stabbing.
“In fact, the testimony to the Court was that Mr. Graham asked for those photos and was told that there were none. It would seem that reasonable diligence might require the defendant to subpoena the photographer to inquire as to his observations on the night that he took those photographs if it was felt that those photographs would have shown the bump.
“However, the Court can deal with this issue through its consideration of the materiality of the evidence itself. Both the defendant and J.B. Pritchard testified before the jury that the defendant had a bump on his head after Iris confrontation with Scott Sanders. This evidence was produced in support of the defendant’s self-defense claim.
*712“Dr. Lora Siegle testified that she found no evidence of a bump some 24 to 48 hours later.
“Now, the unproduced evidence, this Leeson report, would establish that Ron Leeson observed the bump on the defendant’s forehead the evening after the stabbing occurred. This evidence, had it been included and given in this trial, would not have been inconsistent with the evidence presented by die State or the defendant.
“Leeson’s testimony could have helped establish the existence of a bump which might have aided the defendant’s self-defense theory. But the fact that it was gone and no marks remained when the defendant was examined by Dr. Siegle a day later could also be considered to show the injury to be minor and of little consequence and not consistent with the defendant’s testimony of being hit and hit and hit. In any event, while this evidence would be relevant, it would only act to supplement arid support the testimony of others, which the defendant did present to the jury.
“There’s been no indication or evidence here of bad faith or prosecutorial misconduct.
“Having heard all of the evidence at trial, it is my judgment that the inclusion of this evidence would not likely or reasonably produce a different result upon retrial.”
The defendant presented no evidence at the hearing on the motion for new trial other than the deputy’s report. I would affirm the trial court that the prosecution did not suppress or withhold evidence and, even if it did, the defendant has not shown prejudice.
McFarland, J., joins the foregoing dissenting opinion.