OPINION
Thе appellant, Michael Ray Sykes, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Comanche County, Case No. CRF-75-391, for the offense of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1973, § 701.1. He was tried by a jury, who returned a verdict finding him guilty of the lesser included offense of Manslaughter in the First Degree and assessed punishment at five (5) years in the State Penitentiary. From that judgment and sentence the defendant has appealed to this Court.
In summary, the evidence presented at trial was that Jeffrey Sykes, age 17 months, died on April 27,1975 of a subdural hemato-ma. The attendant physicians testified that the child exhibited battered child syndrome. Photographs takеn at the hospital were introduced into evidence to show the nature of the child’s injuries. The defendant took the stand in his own behalf, and testified that the child had had a seizure and had fallen down. He stated that the marks visiblе on the child’s body in the photographs were not bruises, but a rash. In rebuttal the State introduced a prior inconsistent statement made by the defend *249 ant to investigating officers, to the effect that he had caused the bruisеs on the child’s body.
The defendant’s first assignment of error pertains to the photographs of the child. He arguеs that they had no probative value, and were admitted solely to inflame the jury. The general rule as to thе admissibility of photographs is that they are admissible when they are relevant to the issues before the court, and when their probative value is not out-weighed by the danger of prejudice to the accused. Seе
Pate v. State,
Okl.Cr.,
In his second and third assignments of error the defendant complains of the use of the prior inconsistent statement given by the defendant to investigating officers. In his second assignment he contends that thе statement, which was used to impeach his credibility, should have been treated as a confession, therеby requiring an in camera hearing to determine the admissibility of the statement. This issue is controlled by
Harris v. New York,
“Having voluntarily tаken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately, and the proseсution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process.”401 U.S., at p. 225 ,91 S.Ct., at p. 645 ,28 L.Ed.2d, at p. 4 .
See
Dandridge v. State,
Okl.Cr.,
The defendant’s third assignment of error is in two parts, the first of which is answered by our discussion of his second assignment. He maintains that since the statemеnt should have been treated as a confession, he should have been allowed to introduce the entire text after the State had been permitted to introduce his answers to specific questions. But as we hаve already stated, the statement did not merit treatment as a confession. The defendant’s answers werе not introduced as proof that the matter asserted therein was true, but were used solely for the purpose of impeachment. For this reason we hold that the trial court was correct in refusing to allow introduсtion of defendant’s answers to all questions in the statement.
Secondly the defendant claims that the trial court should have been under a duty to instruct the jury that the statement could not be considered by the jury as substantive evidence, since it was introduced in rebuttal, after the defense had rested, for the sole purpose of imрeaching the defendant’s credibility. The defendant relied exclusively on
Leeks v. State,
In
Foreman v. State,
Finally, the defendant contends that he was denied his sixth amendment right tо a speedy trial. As we have discussed in
*250
previous cases, the United States Supreme Court in
Barker v. Wingo,
For the above and foregoing reasons, it is the opinion of this Court that the judgment and sentence appealed from should be, and the same is hereby AFFIRMED.