Court Opinion

ID: 9567590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:55:58.69127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:42.372097
License: Public Domain

Fontron, J.,
concurring: I agree this case should be returned for a new trial, but base this conclusion on the erroneous admission of evidence: The state, proffered twenty-three pictures of the exterior and interior of the automobile driven by the accúsed, showing numerous bullet holes in the vehicle. Although the identity of the vehicle was .material to the issue involved in this case, I see no justification for the admission of this plethora of pictures depicting in detail the bullet, riddled condition of the car. This accused was not charged with aggravated assault and the evidence clearly shows he took no part in the shoot-out.
I am at a loss to understand why the state should seek to get this profusion of pictures before the jury, were it not for the purpose of creating- a harmful, if not prejudicial atmosphere. In my view, this appears to be a plain case of over-kill on the part of the state, and I am not prepared to say, under the particular circumstances of this case, that the accused’s right to a fair trial was not prejudicially affected.