State v. Brown, 413 P.3d 783

Jerone Brown was convicted of aggravated robbery and murder; this appeal concerns autopsy photographs from victim Adji Tampone (State's Exhibits 22A–22H).
Forensic pathologist Dr. Timothy Gorrill identified and described the eight autopsy photos on direct examination while the images were displayed to the jury via projector; defense made no contemporaneous objection.
Subsequent trial interactions (witness authentication, prosecutor and judge statements, and the judge’s instruction to send "all the exhibits" to the jury room) treated the photos as admitted; the defense remained silent throughout trial.
Defense failed to object at trial or raise publication of the photographs in its posttrial motion for new trial or judgment of acquittal.
On appeal Brown argued that the photographs were never formally admitted and that publishing them to the jury without formal admission violated his due process and impartial jury rights.
The Kansas Supreme Court concluded the issue was not preserved under K.S.A. 60-404 because no timely and specific objection was made; the court regarded the exhibits as effectively admitted because court and counsel treated them as such and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether publication of autopsy photos to jury without formal admission violated due process and impartial jury rights	State: issue not preserved; alternatively photos were admitted or any error harmless	Brown: photos were never formally admitted, thus K.S.A. 60-404 contemporaneous-objection rule does not apply and publication was error	Court: Not preserved under K.S.A. 60-404; photos were treated as admitted by court and counsel and objections waived; convictions affirmed

State v. King, 288 Kan. 333 (2009) (contemporaneous-objection rule requires specific, timely objection to preserve evidentiary issues)
State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419 (2009) (expressing limits on exceptions to contemporaneous-objection rule)
State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485 (2010) (refusing to apply appellate exceptions to K.S.A. 60-404 violations)
United States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (exhibits treated as admitted where parties and court acted as if admitted and no objection was raised)
United States v. Bizanowicz, 745 F.2d 120 (1st Cir. 1984) (tape played for jury deemed admitted despite clerical omission where no objection was made)
United States v. Stapleton, 494 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir.) (exhibits marked but not formally received were deemed admitted where testimony and court reliance occurred without objection)
United States v. McCoy, 242 F.3d 399 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (exhibit list showing admission and mutual understanding forecloses error)
Gray v. United States, 100 A.3d 129 (D.C. 2014) (no plain error where videos played and relied on without formal authentication when defense raised no objection)