Court Opinion

ID: 9707178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:04:32.303375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:28.753945
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinon.
Arterburn, C. J.
— I concur in what is said in the majority opinion in this case, except its reference to the case of Kiefer v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 103, 153 N. E. 2d 899. The reference seems to infer that any picture of a body or victim which reveals that a surgeon performed an autopsy would contain “irrelevant matter of a gruesome and inflammatory nature” and would not be admissible. In my opinion, that is not the rule by which admissibility of evidence is determined. 2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence, pp. 654-655, §686 says:
“When otherwise admissible, it is no objection that a photograph is gruesome, or likely to inflame or prejudice the jury. A photograph otherwise admissible is therefore not to be excluded even though it shows a garroted child with his *288hands and feet cut off to prevent identification, or the naked or decomposed body of the victim.”
If the physician here may testify that there was an autopsy and what he did with reference to the autopsy; that the skull was opened and dissecting was done in the area of the left eye for the purpose of determining the cause of death or any other relevant matter, then certainly a picture of whát hé described he did would be admissible.
As a general rule, pictures are admissible even though some changes have occurred in the object pictured or in the surroundings, if they still may give the jury some information, on a relevant point. In the leading case in this state, Hawkins v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 116, 37 N. E. 2d 79 a photograph was taken of a murdered victim’s decomposed body a number of months after he was. killed. There was a change in the seasons, the foliage and other details had changed from the time of death, yet this court approved the admission of such photographs, since they were relevant although gruesome.
We do not wish to have it inferred by our approval of the majority opinion in this case that pictures which show an autopsy has been performed, which have as their purpose to discover the cause of death or any other relevant matter, are inadmissible in a criminal case because they may appear gruesome or prejudicial.