holding the probative value of photographs depicting the extensive injuries of a ten-year-old victim's mauling and partial consumption by dogs was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because "the photos aided the jury in evaluating the testimony offered"
How later courts described this case
- holding the probative value of photographs depicting the extensive injuries of a ten-year-old victim's mauling and partial consumption by dogs was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because "the photos aided the jury in evaluating the testimony offered"
- noting a trial judge's decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence is given great deference and only reversed in exceptional circumstances
- affirming the admission of graphic pre-autopsy photos and explaining a factor in that decision was that "the nature and extent of the boy's physical injuries as described by the pathologist were in contention by the defense"
- holding trial court’s admission of pre-autopsy photographs of victim, ten-year-old boy who died after being severely mauled by dogs, was not abuse of discretion
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Hawes, 423 S.C. 118 (2018)
Hawes responded that Collins and Gray were distinguishable because those cases addressed only autopsy-related photographs, which were necessary to corroborate testimony and rebut opposing testimony, whereas here, the crime scene photographs were unnecessary for corroboration.
The opinion
Justice KITTREDGE.
I concur in result. In my judgment, the admission of the autopsy photographs was clear error. The primary, if not sole, purpose of these horrific photographs was to inflame the passions of the jury. The detailed and graphic testimony of the pathologist was more than sufficient to enable the State to establish the elements of the offense. I agree with Justice Pleicones that these challenged photographs far exceed “the outer limits of what our law permits a jury to consider.” State v. Torres, 390 S.C. 618, 624 , 703 S.E.2d 226, 229 (2010). I fully understand that there are circumstances where autopsy photographs are relevant and that the relevance of the photographs is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Rules 402, 403, SCRE. But this is not such a case. I nevertheless believe the error was harmless for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion. I note this case was tried in 2009, prior to our decision in Torres , where we expressed our concern over the State’s seeming practice of seeking admission of highly prejudicial and inflammatory autopsy photographs.
HEARN, J., concurs.