The opinion
POMEROY, Justice
(concurring).
I join the decision of the Court and that portion of its opinion which considers the admissibility of the psychiatric evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence. This concurrence is appended merely to restate in brief compass what I understand to be the Court’s position on the admissibility of photographs of the body of a deceased person.
In Commonwealth v. Petrakovich, 459 Pa. 511 , 329 A. 2d 844 (1974), we made it clear that the question of the admissibility of such photographs involves a two-step analysis. That analysis was spelled out succinctly in Commonwealth v. Hilton, 461 Pa. 93, 99 , 334 A.2d 648, 651 (1975) (concurring opinion of Pomeroy, J., joined by Mr. Chief Justice Jones and by Justices Eagen, O’Brien and Nix), as follows:
"First, the trial court must decide whether the photograph possesses inflammatory characteristics. If the Court finds that it does not, the picture is admissible as is any evidentiary item, subject, of course, to the qualification of relevance. If, but only if, the photograph is deemed to be inflammatory, the Court must then apply the balancing test set forth in the majority opinion, i. e., is the photograph of ‘such essential evidentiary value that [its] need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors.’ Commonwealth v. Garrison, 459 Pa. 664, 666 , 331 A.2d 186, 187 (1975); Commonwealth v. Petrakovich, 459 Pa. 511 , 329 A.2d 844 (1974).” 461 Pa. at 100 , 334 A.2d at 652 . [footnote omitted]
*451 In the present case, as noted by the Court the trial court refused to exclude the proferred photographs from evidence because, as stated in its opinion denying post-verdict motions, the photographs “were not unduly gruesome, nor such as to influence the minds and passions of the jury.” The trial court went on to state that the pictures “were of evidentiary value in clarifying the case for the jury and showing a killing with malice” — i. e., they were relevant. My review of the record satisfies me that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reaching either of these conclusions and I therefore concur in the Court’s decision to the same effect.