*1 of Indiana.1 Marshall Rehearing February 20, 1962. 30,009. Filed denied March Lebanon, Eugene Burns, appellant. B. for Steers, Attorney General, Edwin K. Richard Attorney General, J-ohnson, Deputy appellee. January 24, appeal assigned to the writer 1. This by indictment Bobbitt, §10-3401, §1, 447, being p. ch. Acts Replacement, with murder the first Burns’ *2 degree, jury, guilty and tried found as sentenced to Indiana State Prison life. the question presented not The sole here is whether or erred, the trial in ad- and abused its discretion court mitting evidence, objection, timely into over State’s “B”, “C”, “D”, “F”, “E” Exhibits and which are photographs of the deceased victim. wholly upon (1958), relies Kiefer position to sustain his to the in
that such exhibits were material issues the case but were introduced to inflame the emo jury prejudice. of the to his tions State, supra, page 114 in We said at Kiefer 239 Ind.: recognize photographs corpse “We of a that evidence, though they por even are admissible in tray spectacle arouse against passion de and resentment jury, fendant of the but minds material must be and relevant and disprove prove or some material tend to issue.” fact relevancy
We also in the Kiefer case stated crime, objects photographs picturing the scene of a commission, body of the victim in its used enabling jury to visualize other details actually occurred, detemined what inquiry per whether or a witness would be objects photographed. mitted to describe the “B”, “D” show Exhibits “C” and crime, location at the scene the crime and of blood around and swashes They body. near the also show tire marks run ning through imprints the blood and tire on the street and across in the area All the knees. facts were these testified to Johnson, objection, photo Officer without and the graphs degree inflamatory, served, a certain while to think, only jury we to illustrate to the which matters testimony. the witness Johnson had described oral regarding If his these facts was material prove disprove tended to or relevant some issue, logically fact it seems follow thing may “B”, about same said “D”. “C” and
Objection ground made “E” on the Johnson could authenti- witness *3 photograph. Identification was cate the later made by another ap- witness and circumstance this objection pellant’s overruled. “F” was a “true identified as and accurate
Exhibit representation body” previously that was de- by except scribed the witness Johnson it had up.” “been cleaned photograph representing
The “F” shows Exhibit only “A”, except wounds shown in Exhibit “A” blood shown and over Exhibit only “F” had been removed so shows that Exhibit the clean wounds which were described in detail fatal performed physician autopsy. who represented by appellant
The able counsel ques impartial he had a fair and trial is not ; corpus adequately proven tioned the delicti was under the circumstances in the record here say, law, appel- we cannot as matter of
609 rights lant’s prejudiced by substantial were the intro- duction of State’s Exhibit “F”. designated photograph
The “F” State’s Exhibit materially differs from 14 Nos. present Kiefer case. Exhibit “F” in the shows case only part cleanly decedent’s wounds, washed fatal which were described 'in detail’ physician performed autopsy; while No. Kiefer case showed the hands surgeon and instruments of the inside the. decedent’s performing autopsy, while chest and Exhibit No. perform- showed additional incisions made in the- autopsy. ance of the these, Neither of Exhibits Nos. 14, correctly 13 and showed the fatal wounds or the death; describing cause nor would oral things the irrelevant shown these exhibits have competent. been judgment our “B”, “C”, State’s Exhibits “D” and
“F” do fall within pro- class were, foregoing hibited the Kiefer case and for the reasons, properly admitted into evidence. having failed to sustain his burden of
showing error, judgment reversible of the trial court must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Landis, JJ.,
Jackson and concur.
Arterburn, J., in result. concurs opinion. concurs with
Concurring Opinion majority opinion I concur controlling the basis of the therein facts stated and the propositions applicable However, of law thereto. I extend thereby precedent add to nor
do not intend to in the case proposition law enunciated E. 117, 153 N. (1958), 239 Keifer a mur pictures a victim of 2d der, during autopsy, may be introduced taken “correctly they do show” evidence because pic If of death. which were the cause wounds they are to of death tures serve establish the cause and, therefore, admissible. may necessary my opinion the fact it instruments, etc., open the use of to wound with depth size, order demonstrate and nature to opening penetration, of the wound such unnatural inadmissible, even pictures does render thereof though exposure human such an the internal gruesome anatomy may be offensive and therefore jury. of members the sensitivities Murder, by nature, very “busi- its being ness.” the life of another human One takes object exposure cannot, propriety, full with upon he inflicted of the wounds which victim, merely tend because such evidence his jury. inflame the Arterburn, concurs. Reported
Note. — Fadell, Kovacik, et al. Auditor Assessor 30,185. Filed March