Court Opinion

ID: 9570420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:23:00.5002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:40.567708
License: Public Domain

Fontron, J.,
dissenting: The series of ten colored slides or pictures which the state was permitted to exhibit to the jury by projecting them on a screen were taken during the autopsy and were not only gruesome — they were gory, horrible and shocking to a layman’s unaccustomed eye. In my opinion the offer of these ten slides could have been for but a single purpose — to inflame the minds of the members of the jury.
The medical testimony was that death occurred from internal bleeding resulting from the five bullet wounds. The external location of the wounds were shown by means of charts and diagrams while the pathologist was testifying. An adequate foundation for medical opinion as to the cause of death was thus provided and the pictures were surplusage at best.
This court has gone a long way in countenancing the introduction of grisly, gruesome photographs, but none so bloody, ghastly or macabre as those depicted on a screen before the jury in this case. The majority opinion does not adequately describe the colored photographs which met the juror’s eyes, nor shall I attempt to do so. *472I would only say they exceeded in bloody ghastliness any pictures which have come before the court since I have been a member.
I hold no brief for any person who perpetrates an odious crime. I assert, however, that one accused of crime, no matter how monstrous, is entitled to a fair trial conducted in an atmosphere free from poison and prejudice. (See my concurring opinion in State v. White, 211 Kan. 862, 508 P. 2d 842. )
The text in 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 260, p. 310, recites:
“. . . Even in a criminal case the admission of gruesome evidence does not deny the defendant a fair trial as guaranteed by law. However, evidence which will only serve to prejudice the minds of the jury is properly excluded. . . .”
I recognize that the admission of demonstrative evidence lies largely within the trial courts discretion. In the present case I believe its discretion was abused to the defendant’s prejudice.