Chapter 12: Real Evidence
Case Study
Overview — Based on: State v. Johnson, 47 So. 3d 449, 210 La. App. LEXIS 971 (2010).
The defendant and other individuals had been shooting dice at the apartment of an associate until the party broke up and the men headed for their automobiles. At this point, the defendant allegedly attempted to rob one of the dice game participants and shot him with a handgun, while a different associate also inflicted gunshot wounds upon the soon-to-be decedent. After a short investigation, Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s officers identified the defendant and another perpetrator. The coroner’s office conducted an investigation of the decedent’s body to determine identity, cause of death, and the trajectory of the bullets that caused the decedent’s demise. The coroner concluded that two different firearms inflicted wounds that were individually fatal or potentially fatal. At the trial, the prosecution introduced testimony using expert testimony offered by an assistant coroner. The coroner introduced autopsy photographs that showed the dead body, entrance and exit wounds, and the trajectory of some of the bullets. In demonstrating the bullet trajectories, prior to taking some of the photographs, the coroner had inserted rods to graphically depict the way the bullets entered the body of the decedent. The coroner’s evidence helped convict the defendant of second-degree murder. The defendant then brought an appeal limited to the issue of whether the photographs introduced by the coroner should have been admitted.
In his only assignment of error, the defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the photographs of the coroner to be admitted in evidence. The defendant contended that the probative value of the photographs was clearly outweighed by unfair prejudicial effect to his case. He asserted that close-up photographs of the dead victim and the photograph of the victim with a rod protruding from his head, which established the bullet trajectory, were so gruesome that they overwhelmed the jurors’ sense of reason and fairness. According to the defendant-appellant’s contentions, this unfair prejudice caused the jury to convict the defendant without sufficient other evidence. The defendant alleged that diagrams offered by the coroner would have been sufficient to establish trajectory and that the photographs were completely unnecessary.
The prosecution contended that the trial court ruled properly and that the photographs were properly used by the assistant coroner in conjunction with her testimony to establish entry and exit wounds, the cause of death, and the identity of the victim. Additionally, the state contended that the photographs were not particularly gruesome and that their probative value most assuredly outweighed any prejudicial effect to the defendant.
According to Louisiana law, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law, and irrelevant evidence is not admissible. However, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or waste of time. The prosecutor is entitled to the moral force of its evidence, and postmortem photographs of murder victims are admissible to prove corpus delicti, to provide positive identification of victim, and to corroborate other evidence establishing cause of death, the manner in which the death occurred, and the location, severity, number, and placement of the wounds. The general rule is that the mere fact that a photo is gruesome does not in itself make the photograph excludable from evidence.
No. As a general principle, autopsy photographs may be admissible in evidence, especially in homicide cases. The mere fact that a photograph is gruesome does not mean that it may not be admitted. Only where a photograph is so gruesome and so outrageous as to overwhelm the jurors’ collective reason to the point that there is a danger the jury might convict on less than sufficient evidence may such photographs be excluded.
No. The photographs were not repetitive or cumulative, according to the appellate court, and they were clearly used to demonstrate the wounds to the deceased and the trajectories of the fatal bullets. The photographs helped corroborate the coroner’s testimony concerning identity, cause of death, and bullet trajectory. Even though the coroner’s diagrams could properly indicate bullet trajectory, the photographs were admissible at trial. Even though the photographs indicated that the defendant had been rolled in some blood, and the photos might not be pleasant to observe, their probative value clearly existed, and the reviewing court considered that they were not unduly prejudicial.
No. The trial judge ruled that the photographs that depicted wounds that had been inflicted on the victim’s body and the photographs that depicted the angles with which the wounds were inflicted were probative of issues in the case and were not repetitive or unnecessarily gory. Even though the photographs were clearly unpleasant, they did not unnecessarily prejudice the defendant’s case and were properly admitted against him.