 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Owens4/10/2002
mitted. Over objection, the prosecutor twice labeled the search for Owens as a "manhunt." The State also questioned a witness about the scope of the police search for Owens. The witness responded that he alerted a nearby grade school to "get the teachers to take [the children] inside."
[ .] The relevant escape evidence is the conduct of the accused because that is the conduct that tends to show the intent and consciousness of the accused. On the other hand, evidence of police conduct in performing a search for the accused does not reveal anything about the accused's intent or consciousness of guilt. Therefore, police conduct in performing this search was not relevant. We nevertheless conclude that the admission of this irrelevant evidence was harmless error.
[ .] In conducting harmless error analysis, we decide whether the erroneously admitted evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Stanga, 2000 SD 129 at , 617 NW2d at 491. In conducting that analysis, we may consider corroborating evidence. " he presence of corroborating evidence more appropriately indicates that any error in admitting the statement might be harmless . . . ." Idaho v. Wright, 497 US 805, 823, 110 SCt 3139, 3150-51, 111 LEd2d 638, 657 (1990).
[ .] Here, the evidence against Owens was overwhelming. The evidence placed Ross and Owens together shortly before her death, and Owens was found in possession of her rings shortly after her death. Owens also confessed to a detective , to his mother, and to Poppenga. We also note that the inadmissible testimony was elicited in passing and was confined to three isolated instances. Considering all of the evidence and circumstances, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the irrelevant testimony would not have made a difference in the jury's determination. The admission of that evidence was harmless error.
[ .] 9. Whether the trial court should have excluded certain autopsy photographs of the victim.
[ .] Owens objected to autopsy photographs and slides which depicted a front facial view of Ross' eyes, nose, mouth, and the rocks that were in her mouth. We review the trial court's admission of photographs and slides under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Disbrow, 266 NW2d 246, 253 (SD 1978); State v. Kaseman, 273 NW2d 716, 726 (SD 1978); State v. Miller, 248 NW2d 56, 60 (SD 1976); State v. Hoover, 89 SD 608, 618, 236 NW2d 635, 640 (1975).
[ .] It is well settled that photographs are generally admissible where they accurately portray anything that a witness may describe in words. They are also admissible when they are helpful in clarifying a verbal description of objects and conditions. They must, however, be relevant to some material issue. State v. Holland, 346 NW2d 302, 307 (SD 1984). If relevant, photographs are not rendered inadmissible merely because they incidentally tend to arouse passion or prejudice. Id; State v. Huth, 334 NW2d 485, 489 (SD 1983); State v. Rash, 294 NW2d 416, 418 (SD 1980); Disbrow, 266 NW2d at 254. Autopsy photographs fall within these rules. Although disturbing and cumulative, autopsy photographs may be admitted when they are necessary to aid in an expert's presentation of evidence. State v. Novaock, 414 NW2d 299, 302 (SD 1987).
[ .] Owens argues that the photographs were not necessary to aid in the coroner's presentation of the evidence. Owens first objects to the pictures of the victim's face and mouth depicting "fly egg" deposits. Owens argues that these photographs were not necessary because Owens did not dispute the victim's identity or the presence of fly eggs.
[ .] Dr. Randall, however, testified that the photographs would assist him in explaining his
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|