Court Opinion

ID: 6547486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:20:48.859709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:00.570960
License: Public Domain

Wood, J., (after stating the facts). The evidence adduced by appellee tends to show that appellant fired upon Lawhorn as the latter rushed toward appellant, and that appellant stooped down behind the fence and continued firing at him; that Lawhorn was unarmed, and threw his hands to his breast and bent forward at the first shot, and as he straightened up appellant fired again and again till he had fired four shots. The evidence on behalf of appellant tended to prove that Lawhorn drew his pistol when appellant did not see him draw it, and ran toward appellant and fired two shots at him, and that appellant ran up to Lawhorn and begged him to stop shooting, pushed him back in the yard, and then stooped down behind the gate post, when Lawhorn “stuck his pistol around the gate post as though he were going to ¡•hoot at Sellers again,” before the latter began firing on him. The testimony for the State thus tends to show that appellant killed his adversary when he, appellant, was in no danger of death or great bodily harm. According to the testimony for the State, there was no excuse or justification for the killing. But, according to the testimony for appellant, he slew Lawhorn in necessary self-defense. In this conflict of the evidence was it error to allow the photographs to be used in evidence? -Two of the photographs represent one of the persons as having his coat on and with pistol in hand in a stooping position aiming at the other who is standing in the yard a few feet away in his shirt sleeves with one hand on the gate and the other hanging loosely by his side and making no belligerent demonstrations. The photographs were taken at the instance of the relatives of Lawhorn. These relatives placed the respective parties to the fatal rencounter in the positions they conceived them to occupy at the time the fatal shots were fired. The appellant was not present when the photographs were taken, and had no one present to represent him. The photographs might have been considered by the jury as tending strongly to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses for the State. The court having admitted them, the jury doubtless considered them accurate representations of the positions of the actors in the tragedy at the time the'shots were fired. They could have done so, there being no evidence to the contrary. But the photographs were not verified by any witness before their introduction. No one who was a witness to the tragedy testified that they were reproductions of the situation of the parties and the place and conditions connected with the fatal rencounter, which they purported to portray. This was essential primarily to the relevancy of the photographs as evidence. 1 Wigmore, Ev., § § 790-792. “As a general rule, photographs are admissible in evidence when they are shown to have been accurately taken, and to be correct representations of the subject in controversy, and are of such a nature as to throw light upon it.” 9 Enc. of Ev., 771; Wharton’s Crim. Ev., § 544; Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420; Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512; Underhill on Criminal Ev. 551. The general objection to the photographs as evidence was sufficient to raise the question of their relevancy. Photographs are admissible as primary evidence upon the same grounds and for the same purposes as diagrams, maps and plats. Under-hill’s Crim. Ev., § 50; 1 Wig. Ev. 792. They aid the jury to understand the evidence of the witnesses by illustrating the situation of the persons, places or things connected with the subject-matter of the inquiry. People v. Buddensieck, 103 N. Y. 487. The placing of persons about the scene of the rencounter in positions shown by the witnesses to have been occupied by the participants does not render a photograph, showing such positions, irrelevant that in other respects is shown to be relevant. This could be no more hurtful than a witness illustrating his testimony 'while on the witness stand by pointing out situations and placing persons in the relative positions and attitudes which he testifies were similar to those occupied and assumed by the actors in the real tragedy or occurrence which he is describing, or by illustrating with the use of a map, plat or diagram the situation of persons, places or things referred to in his testimony. Ragland v. State, 71 Ark. 65; Vance v. State, 70 Ark. 272; Underhill on Ev. 64; Shaw v. State, 83 Ga. 92; State v. O'Reilly, 126 Mo. 597; People v. Jackson, 111 N. Y. 362; Blair v. State, 69 Ark. 558. The Supreme Court of Mississippi in a similar case holds the photographs inadmissible. Fore v. State, 75 Miss. 727. But the weight of authority, and the better reason, we believe, sustain the doctrine we have announced. But, in the absence of testimony showing that the photographs faithfully represented the objects and situations portrayed, they should not have been used in evidence. This having first been shown, they were then admissible in evidence, but subject to impeachment. Underhill on Ev., § 57, and cases cited in note 2. For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for new trial.