 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pyburn8/16/2004
ighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Tenn. R. Evid. 403; Banks, 564 S.W.2d at 951.
The appellant challenges exhibits 23, 25, and 26, which were crime scene photographs introduced over the objection of defense counsel during the testimony of the investigators who investigated and photographed the crime scene. Investigators Weeks and Hargis testified regarding the appearance of the crime scene when they arrived, including the location of the victim's body. The photographs were also used by Dr. Harlan to identify blood spatter and brain tissue in the bedroom where the victim's body was discovered. Exhibit 23 is a photograph of the bathroom door near which the victim's body was located. The photograph depicts what appears to be blood spatter on the door. Exhibit 25 is a photograph of the victim's body as it appeared when the officers arrived at the scene. Blood is visible on the carpet beneath the victim's body. Exhibit 26 is a photograph of a portion of the bed in the room where the victim's body was located. The photograph shows a substance that appears to be tissue on the bed. However, neither the blood nor the "tissue" was submitted for analysis.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the photographs. As the State correctly notes, the photographs were relevant to prove premeditation. By introducing the photographs, the State sought to establish its theory that "the [appellant] had entered [the victim's] room, after the argument had ended, and shot him with premeditation." The photographs also corroborated the testimony of Weeks and Investigator Hargis regarding the crime scene and provided the jury with a description of the scene. Although exhibit 25 is duplicative of another photograph of the victim's body which was introduced into evidence, exhibit 25 was taken at a slightly different angle and included the corner of the bed, thereby demonstrating the location of the victim's body in the room. This issue is without merit.
D. Expert Testimony
The appellant argues that the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Harlan to testify as an expert for the purpose of identifying blood spatter and brain tissue in crime scene photographs. Specifically, the appellant challenges Dr. Harlan's qualifications to testify as an expert on these matters. The appellant further asserts that the testimony was "irrelevant, without proper foundation, and highly prejudicial." The State contends that Dr. Harlan was qualified to testify as an expert and the testimony was relevant.
At trial, the defense stipulated that Dr. Harlan was an expert in the field of forensic pathology. However, after questioning Dr. Harlan about the cause of death, the State asked Dr. Harlan to view exhibit 26, the crime scene photograph of the bed in the room where the victim's body was discovered. Dr. Harlan identified what appeared to be "multiple portions of brain material" on the bed. Defense counsel objected, arguing that Dr. Harlan was not qualified to express such an opinion and the material had not been submitted for analysis. Following a jury-out hearing, the trial court determined that Dr. Harlan was qualified to testify for the purpose of identifying the material as brain tissue, but he was not allowed to testify that the brain tissue was that of a human.
Thereafter, the State asked Dr. Harlan to view exhibits 16 and 23, the crime scene photographs of the window blinds and the bathroom door in the room where the victim's body was discovered. Defense counsel objected, refusing to stipulate that Dr. Harlan was qualified to testify as an expert in the area of blood spatter. Nevertheless, the trial court determined that Dr. Harlan wa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|