State v. Healy, 364 So. 2d 1307

State v. Healy

364 So. 2d 1307 | La. | 1978

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TATE, J., dissents with written reasons. DENNIS, and DIXON, JJ., dissent for the reasons assigned by TATE, J.

Dissenting Opinion

TATE, Justice,

dissenting.

Gruesome photographs of the shaven corpse of the victim were admitted into evidence, although the defendant stipulated to identity of the victim. The photographs were introduced for the sole purpose of their shocking and prejudicial effect. State v. Gilmore, 332 So.2d 789 (La.1976) requires reversal.

In addition, borderline error was committed by the denial, under the allegations, of exculpatory evidence that a paraffin gun-firing detection test conducted on the defendant was negative. However, the issue may be reviewed by a post-conviction proceeding and thus does not require reversal.