explaining that a trial court abuses “its discretion in admitting [gruesome] photographs when the situation generally entails indifference from the trial court or the Commonwealth to the photographs’ prejudicial effect, or where the precautions taken were not commensurate [J-2-2022] [MO: Todd, J.] - 10 with the nature of the scene depicted”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a trial court abuses “its discretion in admitting [gruesome] photographs when the situation generally entails indifference from the trial court or the Commonwealth to the photographs’ prejudicial effect, or where the precautions taken were not commensurate [J-2-2022] [MO: Todd, J.] - 10 with the nature of the scene depicted”
- affirming the defendant’s convictions for multiple counts of first-degree murder and explaining that “the nature of the killings, which [the defendant] alone committed without an accomplice, established malice and specific intent” because the four victims “were each stabbed numerous times ([one victim], who was the object of [the defendant’s] jealousy, suffered forty-three wounds)” with a specific knife that the defendant purchased specifically for that purpose
- holding that, where victim impact witness [J-89-2014] - 48 deviated from the approved statement, the appellant was required to object to preserve his claim of error
- holding that, where victim impact witness deviated from the approved statement, the appellant was required to object to preserve his claim of error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice TODD,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion in all but one respect. Among other challenges to the cross examination of Appellant’s expert, Dr. Ruben Gur, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in allowing questioning concerning the exclusion of Dr. Gur’s testimony in United States v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir.2011), an unrelated federal prosecution. See Majority Opinion at 394-98. I agree with Appellant that this questioning should not have been allowed. According to the majority, “the questions about Montgomery , the federal prosecution in which Dr. Gur’s testimony was excluded, pushed the bounds of relevancy given the obvious complications involving factual distinctions, different evidentiary standards, and the dubious relevance of another court’s discretionary rulings.” Id. at 397 n.19. Rather than allow this type of cross examination as “pushing the bounds of relevancy,” I would disallow it, and find its admission to be an abuse of discretion. However, as I believe the trial court’s error was harmless in this particular case, as the majority acknowledges in the alternative, see id., I would reject Appellant’s claim on that basis, and therefore would nevertheless affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.