Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:A jury convicted the appellant of capital murder. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death. The appellant raises 23 points of error. HOLDING:Affirmed. The appellant claims on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce 13 color autopsy photographs. Appellant further complains that one of these exhibits showed suturing and scars from emergency room attempts to save the victim’s life. The appellant claims that “the prejudicial effect of the State’s photographs far outweighed any possible probative value.” The Texas Rule of Evidence 403 standard, however, is whether the probative value of the evidence “is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” The appellant’s claim boils down to the argument that it was “unfairly prejudicial” for the jury to see the autopsy photographs that helped explain the medical examiner’s testimony and that depicted wounds for which appellant was legally responsible because this evidence appealed to the jury’s emotion. Case law actually refers to an “undue tendency” to suggest decision on an “improper basis” such as an “emotional one.” In this case, the matters depicted in the photographs giving rise to the appellant’s claim that they are “unfairly prejudicial” emanates from nothing more than the results of what appellant has participated in causing. And, the court states, the one photograph that included suturing also showed other injuries caused by appellant and his cohorts. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that any tendency of the photographs to suggest a decision on an emotional basis was not “undue.” And, even if there was an “undue tendency” to suggest a decision on an emotional basis (i.e., “unfair prejudice”), the probative value of the photographs was not “substantially outweighed” or even “outweighed” by this “unfair prejudice.” The court overrules the appellant’s other assertions of error. OPINION:Hervey, J.; Keller, PJ., Meyers, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., joined. Womack, J., concurred.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.