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
*540 Justice PLEICONES.
I respectfully dissent, and would affirm the well-reasoned opinion of the court of appeals. I agree with the court of appeals that any minimal probative value of the admitted photographs was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and that their admission violated Rule 403, SCRE. In my opinion, the prejudice to Collins from the admission of these photographs requires reversal.
This Court recently addressed to the bench and bar our concern over the admission of gruesome photographs in State v. Torres, 390 S.C. 618 , 703 S.E.2d 226 (2010), where we observed:
Although we affirm the admission of the photographs, we take this opportunity to address an area of growing concern to this Court. The photographs at issue in this case, while admissible, are at the outer limits of what our law permits a jury to consider. Moreover, the State also sought to introduce evidence in the form of an autopsy dissection photo at trial, which the trial judge wisely excluded. Today, we strongly encourage all solicitors to refrain from pushing the envelope on admissibility in order to gain a victory which, in all likelihood, was already assured because of other substantial evidence in the case.
Id. at 624 , 703 S.E.2d at 229 . 5
In my judgment, the majority has today approved the admission of evidence that far exceeds “... the outer limits of what our law permits a jury to consider.” Id. In my opinion, the only way we can educate the bench and bar as to that which is and is not beyond the pale is to publish these horrific photographs with our opinion.
I would affirm the court of appeals.
. Photographs 31 to 35 at issue here are at least as disturbing as the autopsy dissection photo in Torres .