Court Opinion

ID: 9572392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:41:20.278387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:46.417335
License: Public Domain

Weltner, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent to Division 1 of the majority opinion.
“Doubtless, photographs of the victim are prejudicial to the accused, but so is most of the state’s pertinent testimony. The pictures may be gory, but murder is usually a gory undertaking.” Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 187 (6) (263 SE2d 916) (1980). This truth, undeniable, was reiterated by Chief Justice Jordan in Morrow v. State, 249 Ga. 1 (1) (287 SE2d 37) (1982). Earlier, Chief Justice Jordan, in Florence v. State, 243 Ga. 738, 741 (256 SE2d 467) (1979), offered the following cogent footnote: “According to the record 24 color photographs of the victim were introduced into evidence by the district attorney. At least a number of those could be said to be repetitious and merely cumulative. To this writer it appears that some prosecuting attorneys are taking license with the very liberal policy of this court in refusing to find reversible error in the use of photographs. The use of photographs should be limited to only those which are relevant and illustrative of the issues.” The same author, in Wood v. State, 243 Ga. 273, 274 (253 SE2d 751) (1979) observed, relative to a similar objection, that certain photographs “could not be considered so spectacularly gruesome as to be classified as inflammatory.” In Holcomb v. State, 130 Ga. App. 154, 155 (2) (202 SE2d 529) (1973) there appears this admonition: “Where photographs of a deceased are not spectacularly (gruesome, and where they do clearly indicate the cause of death, it is well settled in this state that they are admissible in evidence. Bryan v. State, 206 Ga. 73 (55 SE 574); Henderson v. State, 227 Ga. 68 (179 SE2d 76). Where, as here, the cause of death is not in dispute, and the defendant admits to having fired the fatal bullet, a trial judge would often be well advised to sustain an objection to their admissibility on the ground that they add nothing of probative value to the record. Nevertheless, under the decided cases the head and chest shots here were properly admitted in evidence.”
Now, once again, we have wrestled with the same problem, brandishing admonitions but declining to act with authority.
It is true that murder is a gory undertaking. It is true that photographs of such an undertaking will be gory because the truth *458itself is gory. Nor may the author of carnage rightfully complain when the jury is exposed properly to an accurate depiction of his work.
This case, however, is entirely different. Already in the evidence are two full-size, full-color photographs of the deceased, displaying the upper torso and a Y-type incision made during autopsy. Both photographs depict multiple wounds, all of which were identified by expert testimony as causae mortis. There can be no rightful objection to these photographs.
The third photograph, however, displays not the work of the assailants, but of the autopsist. It is a color photograph taken of the top of the skull and left side of the body. The scalp has been slit from ear to ear, up over the head, and pulled forward down to the forehead and backward over the occipital, thus exposing a bald, white, and bloody skull.
While the court admitted this photograph on the theory that it displayed head wounds (and indeed it does), its introduction is, in my opinion, prejudicial and inflammatory to the extent of constituting reversible error.
Crimes done amidst the vilest of passions must be judged in deliberation and calm. The evidence against the accused in this case, without the objectionable photograph, is overwhelming as to every element of guilt, including the nature and extent of the victim’s wounds. The introduction of the questioned photograph can be assigned to nothing but an effort to inflame the jury with the spectacularly gruesome. For, indeed, if the bare skull and hanging scalp of this victim is not spectacularly gruesome, we shall never see such a thing.
The rule in these matters should be something as follows: if a photograph is spectacularly gruesome, and if it is not evidence essential to the proof of the state’s case, then it should be excluded on the ground that its inflammatory effect outweighs its evidentiary worth. I realize that the term “spectacularly gruesome” is purely a subjective standard, and that its application will, of necessity, depend upon the varying apprehension of trial judges. Nonetheless, there must be some rule, and, wanting a greater precision, it should suffice.
Unless and until our Court is willing to declare prejudicial error in such admissions, we will forever be plagued with the problems outlined by prior writers of both appellate courts of our State, and by Chief Justice Hill in the majority opinion. We will forever be required to temporize, to equivocate, and to apologize for our affirmances.
I am authorized to state that Justice Smith joins in this dissent.