Page:BERRY V. STATE.pdf/1

Rh

Laura BERRY v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 86-47

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered November 3, 1986


 * 1) CRIMINAL LAW—ADMISSION OF INFLAMMATORY PHOTOGRAPHS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REEXAMINATION OF POSITION BY SUPREME COURT—EMPHASIS ON NEED TO WEIGH PROBATIVE VALUE AGAINST PREJUDICIAL NATURE.—Because of the trial court's carte blanche acceptance of graphic and repetitive pictures into evidence, the Supreme Court is reexamining its position on the admissibility of inflammatory photographs, firmly emphasizing the need for the trial court to carefully weigh the probative value of the photographs against their prejudicial nature, rather than promoting a general rule of admissibility which essentially allows automatic acceptance of all the photographs of the victim and crime scene the prosecution can offer.
 * 2) EVIDENCE—RELEVANCY—PHOTOGRAPHS OF VICTIM RELEVANT IN DEFENDANT'S CASE WHERE MURDER WAS COMMITTED BY ACCOMPLICE.—Even though there was no evidence that appellant administered any of the blows to the victim, the photographs of the victim are not irrelevant because appellant is liable for the conduct of her accomplice, who admitted the crime. [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-302 (Repl. 1977).]
 * 3) CRIMINAL LAW—PHOTOGRAPHS OF VICTIM—PROBATIVE VALUE NOT REMOVED BY ADMISSION BY APPELLANT AS TO WHAT PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW—AGREEMENT BY APPELLANT AND STATE ON HOW MURDER WAS CARRIED OUT—EFFECT.—The fact that appellant admitted to everything shown in the photographs does not necessarily remove all probative value, since this alone does not preclude admission; however, where, as here, the state and the defendant agree not only on the cause of death and the brutal manner in which it was carried out, but also on who inflicted the injuries and his "extreme indifference" in doing so, that has a bearing on the probative value of the photographs.
 * 4) CRIMINAL LAW—PHOTOGRAPHS OF VICTIM LIMITED TO CAUSE AND NATURE OF DEATH—REASONABLE NUMBER DEPICTING INJURY AND CRIME SCENE ADMISSIBLE.—The probative value of the photographs in this case was limited to the cause and nature of death and would easily have been satisfied by introduction of a reasonable number of photographs depicting the injury to the victim and showing the crime scene.