Com. v. Smith, W. ( 2018 )

J-S49022-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WALTER MARK SMITH
Appellant No. 391 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 5, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-01-CR-0000823-2016
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 27, 2018
Appellant Walter Mark Smith appeals from the February 5, 2018
judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
(“trial court”), following his jury convictions for first-degree and third-degree
murder.1 Upon review, we affirm.
The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. 2 On the
night of Friday June 3, 2016, into the early morning hours of Saturday June
4, 2016, Appellant and Mitchell Jones (the “victim”) were on an alcohol and
crack cocaine binge, spending hours drinking and smoking crack cocaine
together. By the early morning hours the victim ended up at Appellant’s
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a), (c).
2Unless otherwise noted, these facts are taken from the trial court’s April 26,
2018 opinion. See Trial Court’s Opinion, 4/26/18, at 2-4.
J-S49022-18
residence on Chapel Road in Adams County, which is the location where the
victim was later found deceased in Appellant’s upstairs bedroom. At some
point, the two got into an altercation during which Appellant, a physically
imposing person, beat the much more diminutive victim to death with his bare
hands. Sometime after the beating, as the victim was lying in a pool of blood
on the bedroom floor, Appellant covered the victim’s head and part of his
upper torso with a large black trash bag. According to Appellant, he went to
sleep and woke up the next morning to find the victim dead on his bedroom
floor.
Later in the day on June 4, 2016, after some futile attempts to clean up
evidence, including placing blood-soaked items in a washing machine,
Appellant drove the victim’s pickup truck to visit friends and advised them that
he had gotten into a fight with the victim after a night of “partying together.”
Appellant told these witnesses that the victim hit him with a chair and knocked
him down so in response Appellant “beat him to death” and that when he woke
up the victim was stiff. Appellant’s right hand was swollen during this
conversation. Appellant told his friends he was going away for a long time
and came to say goodbye.
After Appellant left, the witnesses, believing the victim could be hurt
inside Appellant’s residence, drove to Appellant’s residence, entered through
a backdoor, observed broken items in the house and eventually discovered
the victim dead in Appellant’s bedroom. One witness testified he knew it was
bad as he approached the steps because a strong scent of blood was detected.
-2-
J-S49022-18
On Saturday, June 4, 2016, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the Conewago
Township Police Department was dispatched to Appellant’s residence, based
on a report that an individual had gone to the residence and discovered the
victim’s dead body. Upon arrival, police officers observed evidence of a
struggle and broken items inside the residence and in an upstairs bedroom
discovered the victim deceased, lying on the floor. The officers noted a large
amount of blood loss and obvious signs of a struggle inside the bedroom,
including a bloody handprint sliding down the bedroom wall. In addition, the
victim had a black trash bag covering his head and a portion of his upper
torso. Specifically, the victim was found with a pool of blood under his head
with a badly beaten face, injuries to his upper arms and blood smears
throughout Appellant’s bedroom, including on the walls, on a recliner chair
and on items within the disheveled room. Blood was also found on various
items in Appellant’s bathroom located down the hall from the bedroom.
Appellant eventually was arrested and charged with first and third-
degree murder. On November 20, 2017, Appellant filed a pretrial motion in
limine, objecting to the admission by the Commonwealth of various
photographs depicting the crime scene and the victim’s deceased body. In
particular, Appellant alleged that the photographs at issue were “either
cumulative, inflammatory or not essential to the Commonwealth’s case.”
Appellant’s Motion, 11/20/17, at ¶ 4. Following a hearing, the trial court
ordered as follows:
-3-
J-S49022-18
1. Color autopsy photographs identified as numbers 55, 56, 014
and 016 are admissible as there is no longer any objection being
pursued by Defense.
2. Color autopsy photographs 145 and 146 are admissible
provided that the photographs are cropped to the general area of
the eyes only.
3. As [Appellant’s] objection to the admissibility of autopsy
photographs of the Hyoid Bone, specifically photographs 113, 114,
117, 119 and 120, it is hereby ordered that the motion is granted
in part. The Commonwealth may introduce one of that series of
photographs in color to further illustrate the testimony of its
expert witnesses with regard to the hemorrhaging and Hyoid Bone
fracture. The photograph may be introduced in color and
presented via projection on the screen. The remaining
photographs in that series are precluded as cumulative.
4. [Appellant’s] objection to autopsy photographs of [Appellant’s]
hand, identified as photograph number 017 is denied. The
Commonwealth may introduce that photograph in color and by
projection on the screen.
5. As [Appellant] indicated during oral argument that he no longer
has objection thereto the crime scene photograph identified as
number 134 is admissible in color and may be displayed on the
projection screen.
6. [Appellant’s] motion to preclude the autopsy photograph
identified as number 008 is denied. As the photo demonstrates
significant bleeding and the swelling to the left side of the victim’s
face and considering the fact [Appellant] is right-handed, the [trial
court] finds the photograph fairly depicts the injuries sustained by
the victim. The amount and presence of blood on the victim does
not render this photograph inflammatory. The photograph may
be briefly displayed on the projection screen at pertinent times
during the Commonwealth’s expert’s pathologist’s testimony.
7. [Appellant’s] objection to the crime scene photographs
numbers 142, 160 and 159 is denied. The photographs fairly
depict the victim at the crime scene. These photographs are
necessary to show the appropriate detail of alleged hemorrhaging
and injuries to the victim’s left and right arms. The [trial court]
specifically finds that the black and white photographs do not
provide enough clarity or detail to adequately illustrate the
condition of the victim’s arms. The photographs are not
cumulative. They may be displayed on the screen in color.
8. Photograph number 158 is also admissible to show the
condition of the victim’s head at the crime scene after the removal
of the trash bag covering from his upper torso and head.
-4-
J-S49022-18
Trial Court Order, 12/5/17, ¶¶ 1-8. The case ultimately proceeded to a jury
trial, where, as the trial court noted, the Commonwealth
introduced 83 different photographs. The vast majority of the
photographs were benign. The photographs included aerial views
of the home where the murder occurred, the crime scene,
Appellant following his arrest, the path taken by the witnesses and
officers as they entered the home and discovered the [victim’s]
body in the upstairs bedroom, the washing machine with wet
bedding inside depicting Appellant’s attempt to clean evidence of
the murder, downstairs living room couches, a hallway view up
the stairs, a chair and bucket sitting outside of the bedroom, the
bathroom taken from the hallway and other photographs from
inside of Appellant’s house.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/18, 4-5. At trial, Appellant raised a claim of self-
defense, claiming that the victim attacked him with a screwdriver. He also
argued that he lacked the requisite specific intent to kill to sustain a conviction
for murder in the first degree. Nonetheless, following a three-day trial, the
jury, on December 7, 2017, found Appellant guilty of murder in the first and
third degrees. On February 5, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a
term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant did not
file any post-sentence motions. Appellant timely appealed to this Court. The
trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors
complained of on appeal. After a considerable delay, Appellant complied,
raising a single issue:
[T]he [trial] court committed an error of law and abuse of
discretion in permitting the Commonwealth to admit into evidence
the photographs used in Appellant’s trial without modification.
Said photographs were unduly prejudicial in that, inter alia, they
were unnecessary and unduly inflamed the passions of the jury to
the extent that the jury was unable to reflect on the evidence in
an objective manner.
-5-
J-S49022-18
Rule 1925(b) Statement, 4/10/18. In response, the trial court issued a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, concluding that Appellant has waived his assertion
of error. Specifically, the trial court noted that Appellant “has failed to
articulate which photographs he finds were erroneously admitted into
evidence. In addition, Appellant fails to specify how the photographs were
unfairly prejudicial or inflammatory.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/28/18, at 2. The
trial court, nonetheless, reasoned that, even if Appellant did not waive the
issue, he still is not entitled to relief because the photographs were not
inflammatory.
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
“[w]hether the trial court’s admission of color photographs, depicting autopsy
and crime scene was [in] error and an abuse of discretion, when the photos
were inflammatory and possessed no essential evidentiary value to the case.”
Appellant’s Brief at 5. At the outset, we note that Appellant failed to preserve
his argument that the photographs in question possessed no “essential
evidentiary value,” because he did not raise this argument before the trial
court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived
and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).3
Our standard of review is well-settled: “The admissibility of photos of
the corpse in a homicide case is a matter within the discretion of the trial
____________________________________________
3 Similarly, insofar as Appellant challenges the manner in which the
Commonwealth displayed the photographs to the jury, such challenge also is
waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
-6-
J-S49022-18
court, and only an abuse of discretion will constitute reversible error.”
Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 138 (Pa. 2008) (citations
omitted). An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of
judgment, but rather occurs where the court has reached a conclusion that
overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly
unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.
Commonwealth v. Davido, 106 A.3d 611, 645 (Pa. 2014).
We now turn our attention to Appellant’s argument that the color
photographs in question, which he identified as photograph numbers 8, 142,
158, 159, 160, are inflammatory.4
When the Commonwealth seeks to introduce into evidence photographs
of a victim’s injuries, the trial court must engage in a two-part analysis. First,
the court must decide if the photograph is inflammatory. Commonwealth v.
Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 494 (Pa. 2015). If not, the photograph is admissible
if it is relevant and can assist the jury’s understanding of the facts. Id. If,
however, it is inflammatory, the trial court must decide whether or not the
photograph is of such essential evidentiary value that its need clearly
outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors.
Id. For a photograph to be deemed inflammatory, “the depiction must be of
such a gruesome nature or be cast in such unfair light that it would tend to
____________________________________________
4 As the trial court pointed out, photograph number 8, 142, 158, 159, and 160
correspond to Commonwealth’s trial exhibits number 97, 61, 62, 63, and 64,
respectively.
-7-
J-S49022-18
cloud an objective assessment of the guilt or innocence of the appellant.”
Commonwealth v. Dotter, 589 A.2d 726, 729 (Pa. Super. 1991), appeal
denied, 607 A.2d 249 (Pa. 1992). The visibility of blood in a photograph,
however, does not necessarily require a finding that the photograph is
inflammatory. Commonwealth v. Crawely, 526 A.2d 334, 341 (Pa. 1987).
In Woodard, the appellant was sentenced to death in connection with
the murder of a two-year-old boy. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the
appellant argued, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in
permitting the Commonwealth to admit into evidence thirteen autopsy
photographs of the boy, twelve of which were in color. The Court, upon
review, held that the trial court acted within its discretion when it concluded
that the images depicted were not inflammatory. The Court reasoned that
“the twelve challenged color photographs portrayed various parts of [the
boy’s] body and illustrated the nature and extent of his injuries, which would
have not been readily detectable in a black and white photo.” Woodard, 129
A.3d at 494-95. Moreover, the Court noted that the single black and white
photo depicted an internal injury, i.e., the boy’s lacerated liver. The jury in
Woodard was not given the photographs to examine during deliberations,
but viewed them in connection with the Commonwealth’s expert’s testimony
explaining the findings of the autopsy report. Id. at 495.
The Court in Woodard further noted that even if the photographs were
inflammatory, “we conclude, without hesitation, that they were highly
probative as they related directly to the requisite elements of first degree
-8-
J-S49022-18
murder, i.e., that [the boy] was unlawfully killed, as opposed to having
drowned by accident, and that [the a]ppellant possessed the specific intent to
kill.” Id. Finally, the Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the
photographs constituted cumulative evidence because the Commonwealth’s
expert testified to the nature of the boy’s injuries and the cause of his death.
In so doing, the Court pointed that the “[t]he mere fact that a medical
examiner testified to the nature of the victim’s injuries and the cause of death
does not render the photographs of the victim duplicative.” Id. citing
(Commonwealth v. Watkins, 108 A.3d 692, 724 (Pa. 2014);
Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307, 319 (Pa. 2008) (holding that
photographic evidence of the victim’s injuries is not rendered duplicative
merely because a medical examiner or other comparable expert witness has
conveyed to the jury, in appropriate clinical language, the nature of the
victim’s injuries and the cause of death). Indeed, the presentation of
testimony as to a person’s injuries “does not render photographs per se
inadmissible.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017, 1034 (Pa. 2012)
(citations omitted).
Instantly, even though the Commonwealth and trial court urge us to find
Appellant’s sole evidentiary issue waived, because he fails to offer any specific
indication as to how the color photographs could have potentially inflamed the
jurors’ passions, we decline to find waiver. After careful review of the record
and the relevant case law, we conclude that that the trial court accurately and
thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant’s claim. See Trial Court Opinion,
-9-
J-S49022-18
4/26/18, at 6-13. We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Appellant’s motion in limine and permitting the
Commonwealth to introduce the color photographs of the victim, depicting the
crime scene and autopsy. See Woodard, supra; see also Commonwealth
v. King, 721 A.2d 763, 772-73 (Pa. 1998) (holding that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting photograph depicting the manner in which
the victim was tied and which showed graphic signs of the body’s
decomposition, including blackening of hands and secretion of bodily fluids);
Commonwealth v. Stein, 548 A.2d 1230, 1234 (Pa. Super. 1988) (noting
that a defendant “will not be permitted to brutalize his victim and then keep
the jury from learning exactly how brutal the assault was.”), appeal denied,
557 A.2d 723 (Pa. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s February 5,
2018 judgment of sentence order. We further direct that a copy of the trial
court’s opinion dated April 26, 2018 be attached to any future filings in this
case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/27/2018
- 10 -
,,
Circulated 10/31/2018 11:27 AM
� r, �
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-01-CR-823-2016 �
vs.
� 1;.:1
WALTER MARK SMITH
� :,;[�,I
m
.,1
r'
("JI Pl
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) � :c/
.. i D
..
.r:- . I
-·,
Previously on March 29, 2018 this Court entered a short one paragrapfi;l "'/
Opinion pursuant to Pa R.A.P. 1925(a) in which it was noted that Appellant failed
l to file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of by the Court ordered
deadline of March 23, 2018 and requesting that the Appellate Court deem all
issues waived.
On April 10, 2018, some eighteen (18) days after the filing deadline,
Defense Counsel filed a Concise Statement of Errors Complained on Appeal. In
that statement Appellate raises one issue for review. Specifically, a generic
allegation that the trial court committed an error of law and abuse of discretion in
permitting the Commonwealth to admit into evidence photographs used in
Appellant's trial without modification. Appellant suggests the photographs were
unduly prejudicial and that they were unnecessary and unduly inflamed the
passions of the jury.
In Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme
Court rejected Defendant's argument that photographs of the decedent's body
were inflammatory, had no overwhelming evidentiary value and were cumulative
of other evidence. The Wright Court found that appellant failed to specify how
1
SCANNED
�\\
they were inflammatory, why they lacked evidentiary value, or what other
evidence they duplicated. Appellant merely restated the standards, in hopes the
Court would formulate arguments on his behalf. The same situation presents
itself instantly.
Indeed, at this point Appellant has failed to articulate which photographs
he finds were erroneously admitted into evidence. In addition, Appellant fails to
specify how the photographs were unfairly prejudicial or inflammatory.
Even if the Superior Court determines that Appellant has not waived the
issue due to the failure to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of in a
timely manner, the following is offered in support of decisions of the Trial Court to
admit a few, but not nearly all, of the Commonwealth's proffered photographs. It
is respectfully requested that this Court's judgment of sentence be affirmed.
On Saturday, June 4, 2016, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the Conewago
Township Police Department was dispatched to a residence on Chapel Road in
Conewago Township, Adams County, based on a report that an individual had
gone to the residence and there discovered the body of Mitchell Jones,
deceased. Upon arrival police officers observed evidence of a struggle and
broken items inside the residence and in an upstairs bedroom discovered
Mitchell Jones, deceased, lying on the floor. The officers noted a large amount
of blood loss and obvious signs of a struggle inside the bedroom, including a
bloody handprint sliding down the bedroom wall. In addition, Mitchell Jones had
a black trash bag covering his head and a portion of his upper torso.
2
The evidence at trial revealed that Appellant and Mitchell Jones were
lifelong friends. On the night of Friday June 3, 2016, into the early morning hours
of Saturday June 4, 2016, Appellant and Mitchell Jones were on an alcohol and
crack cocaine binge, spending hours drinking and smoking crack cocaine
together. By the early morning hours Mitchell Jones ended up at the Appellant's
residence on Chapel Road in Adams County, which is the location where Mitchell
Jones was later found deceased in Appellant's upstairs bedroom. At some point,
the parties got into an altercation during which the Appellant, a physically
imposing person, beat the much more diminutive Mitchell Jones to death with his
bare hands.
At trial, Appellant raised a claim of self-defense arguing that Mitchell
Jones attacked him with a screwdriver which necessitated Appellant defending
himself to the degree that he beat Mitchell Jones to death in the upstairs
bedroom.1 The beating was brutal and savage. Sometime after the beating, as
Mitchell Jones was lying in a pool of blood on the bedroom floor, Appellant
covered Mitchell Jones' head and part of his upper torso with a large black trash
bag. According to Appellant he went to sleep and awoke the next morning to find
his friend, Mitchell Jones, dead on his bedroom floor. At the crime scene
Decedent was found with a pool of blood under his head with a badly beaten
face, injuries to his upper arms and blood smears throughout Appellant's
bedroom, including on the walls, on a recliner chair and on items within the
disheveled room. Blood was also found on various items in Appellant's bathroom
located down the hall from the bedroom.
1 On June 4, 2016 Appellant originally told other friends Mitchell Jones attacked him with a chair.
3
Later in the day on June 4, 2016 after some futile attempts to clean up
evidence, including placing blood soaked items in a clothes washer, Appellant
drove Mitchell Jones pickup truck to visit friends and advised that he had gotten
into a fight with Mitchell Jones after a night of "partying together." Appellant told
these witnesses that Mitchell Jones hit him with a chair and knocked him down
so in response Appellant "beat him to death" and that when he woke up Mitchell
was stiff. Appellant's right hand was swollen during this conversation. Appellant
told his friends he was going away for a long time and came to say goodbye.
After Appellant left, the witnesses, believing Mitchell Jones could be hurt
inside Appellant's residence, drove to Appellant's residence, entered through a
backdoor, observed broken items in the house and eventually discovered
Mitchell Jones dead in Appellant's bedroom. One witness testified he knew it
was bad as he approached the steps because a strong scent of blood was
detected.
At trial the defense raised a claim of self-defense as well as the defense
that Appellant lacked the requisite specific intent to kill necessary to sustain a
conviction for murder in the first degree. Following a three (3) day jury trial, the
jury returned verdicts of guilty on Count 1, Murder of the First Degree and Count
2, Murder of the Third Degree. The verdict was rendered on December 7, 2017.
On February 5, 2018 this Court sentenced Appellant to a mandatory term of life
in prison without any possibility of parole.
At trial the Commonwealth introduced 83 different photographs. The vast
majority of the photographs were benign. The photographs included aerial views
4
of the home where the murder occurred, the crime scene, Appellant following his
arrest, the path taken by the witnesses and officers as they entered the home
and discovered the body of Mitchell Jones in the upstairs bedroom, the washing
machine with wet bedding inside depicting Appellant's attempt to clean evidence
of the murder, downstairs living room couches, a hallway view up the stairs, a
chair and bucket sitting outside of the bedroom, the bathroom taken from the
hallway and other photographs from inside of Appellant's home. From the tardy
Concise Statement of Errors Complained of this Court can still not decipher
which trial exhibits Appellant suggests where unduly prejudicial as being
unnecessary and inflammatory.
This Court is left to surmise that Appellants unspecified complaints pertain
to the few autopsy and crime scene photos showing decedent's body. Prior to
trial Appellant filed a Motion in Limine seeking to preclude the Commonwealth
from admitting into evidence various autopsy photographs and crime scene
photographs depicting the Decedent. This Court held a hearing on Appellant's
Motion in Limine at which time Appellant, through counsel, withdrew the
objections to many of the photographs contained within Appellant's motion. This
Court made a careful review of all photographs to which Appellant was objecting.
On December 4, 2017, after much deliberation, this Court entered an Order
addressing each of the remaining photographs identified in Appellant's Motion in
Limine. The general basis for this Court's ruling is set forth in that Order of Court
as the specific photographs are discussed.
5
The admissibility of photos of the corpse in a homicide case is a matter
within the discretion of the trial court, and only an abuse of discretion will
constitute reversible error. Commonwealth v. McCutchen, 454 A.2d 547, 549
(Pa. 1982).
As noted repeatedly by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
a criminal homicide trial is, by its very nature, unpleasant, and the
photographic images of the injuries inflicted are merely consonant
with the brutality of the subject of inquiry. To permit the disturbing
nature of the images of the victim to rule the question of
admissibility would result in the exclusion of all photographs of the
homicide victim, and would defeat one of the essential functions of
a criminal trial, inquiry into the intent of the actor. There is no need
to so overextend an attempt to sanitize the evidence of the
condition of the body as to deprive the Commonwealth of
opportunities of proof in support of the onerous burden of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 639 A.2d 786, 788-789 (Pa. 1994) (citing,
Mccutchen, 554 A.2d at 549.
Further, the condition of the victim's body provides evidence of the
assailant's intent, and, even where the body's condition can be described
through testimony from a medical examiner, such testimony does not obviate the
admissibility of photographs. Jacobs, 639 A.2d at 789. See also,
Commonwealth v. Rush, 646 A.2d 557 (Pa. 1994).
Further, neither graphic testimony nor the pictures gruesome nature
precludes admissibility of photographs of a homicide scene. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 690 A.2d 203, 217 (Pa. 1997). ("while the
presence of blood on the victim depicted in the photographs is unpleasant, it is
not in and of itself inflammatory."); Commonwealth v. Gorby, 588 A.2d 902, 908
6
(Pa. 1991) (no abuse of discretion in allowing photographs "which depicted a
large gaping gash on the victim's neck as well as thirteen other knife wounds
located on the victim's hands, arms, back, and chest"); Commonwealth v.
Chester, 587 A.2d 1367, 1373-74 (Pa. 1991) (no abuse of discretion in allowing
photographs of the victim's slashed throat, open eye, and other head injuries as
evidence of specific intent to kill).
Yet another case supports the decision of the Court in allowing a few of
the multitude of crime scene photographs to come into evidence in this case. In
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 555 A2d 818 (Pa. 1989), thirteen photographs
were admitted of the victim's body which depicted her beaten face, the
strangulation area of her neck, wounds on her hands and fingers, bite marks on
her legs and explicit photographs of her chest and abdomen related to the sexual
nature of the attack. Our Supreme Court concluded that "the photographs
admitted were not inflammatory and were relevant in aiding the jury to
understand the events of the crime charged." Edwards, 555 A.2d 188.
In a homicide trial it is difficult to imagine a case where the
Commonwealth would not be permitted to introduce photographic evidence of the
condition of the victim's body considering its need to prove Defendant's specific
intent and the circumstances surrounding the crime. In this case the
photographs admitted were limited to a few of the many the Commonwealth
requested, were relevant to issues for the jury's determination and were not
prejudicial. Throughout trial the Court took every effort to make sure that the
presentation of the photographs to the jurors was minimal in number and
7
duration of display and prevented further undo focus on the photographs by not
allowing any of the photographs to go out with the jury during their deliberations.
This Court carefully exercised the discretion afforded to it to limit the
number and types of photographs shown to the jury so as to minimize any
possibility of unfair prejudice to Appellant. For example, the Defense objected to
five (5) autopsy photographs of Decedent's hyoid bone. The Commonwealth
sought to introduce all five (5) of those photographs arguing that they show the
fractures to the Decedent's hyoid bone from different angles. The
Commonwealth argued that the photographs illustrate the testimony of the
Commonwealth's expert witness with regard to the hemorrhaging and hyoid bone
fracture, and the significance of those injuries. To limit the inundation of graphic
images to the jury and to prevent introduction of cumulative evidence, this Court
allowed the Commonwealth to introduce· only one (1) out of the series of five (5)
photographs. An autopsy photograph of decedent's blood covered hand was
also admitted. (Com. Ex. 100). That picture was relevant to show the amount of
blood on decedent's hand relative to the items Appellant alleges were weapons
brandished against him (screwdriver or chair), as well as decedents true
condition following the beating. The picture shows just how brutal the beating
was. The Court also allowed introduction of an additional autopsy photograph to
demonstrate the significant bleeding and swelling to the left side of the victim's
face. (Com. Ex. 97). The photograph was relevant considering the fact that the
Appellant was alleged to have beaten Decedent to death with his bare hands and
the fact that Appellant is right handed. The injuries Mitchell Jones sustained to
8
the left side of his face are consistent with being struck by a right handed person.
The Court further found that the photograph fairly depicted the injuries sustained
by the decedent at the hands of Appellant. Also admitted were close up autopsy
photographs of decedent's eyes to illustrate the petechial hemorrhaging. (Com.
Ex. 104 and 105). Autopsy photos of the inside of decedent's lips were also
admitted to show injuries and one source of significant bleeding. (Com. Ex. 101
and 102). Those photographs were allowed to be used at pertinent times during
the Commonwealth's presentation of its expert pathologist at trial.
Finally, the Court admitted a total of five (5) color copies of crime scene
photographs showing decedent, out of the dozens of photographs the
Commonwealth requested, to which Appellant objected to four (4).2 The Court
found that the photographs were necessary to show in appropriate detail the
hemorrhaging and injuries to the decedent's left and right arms. (Com. Ex. 61,
62, and 64). This Court specifically found that black and white copies provided to
the Court for consideration did not provide enough clarity or detail to illustrate the
condition of the decedent's arms. The Court also allowed the introduction of one
wide-angle photograph of the bedroom showing the decedent on the floor as
police discovered him.3 Finally, the Court allowed the admission of a photograph
to show the condition of the decedent's head at the crime scene following the
removal of the trash bag that was covering his upper torso and head. (Com. Ex.
2 The crime scene photographs to which Appellant objected in his Motion in Limine correlate to
trial exhibits 61, 62, 63, and 64.
3 Appellant withdrew his objection to this photograph (trial exhibit 60, scene #134) during
argument on the Appellant's Motion in Limine.
9
63). The Court found the photographs to not be cumulative and briefly allowed
their display to the jury.
Importantly, this Court granted Appellant's Motion in Limine with regard to
all remaining photographs as set forth in Appellant's Motion, finding the
photographs to be cumulative and lacking in any independent evidentiary value
when considering the potentially inflammatory nature of those additional
photographs. This Court took great care to limit the number and the nature and
the type of photographs which the Commonwealth was allowed to introduce in
order to minimize and reduce any prejudicial and inflammatory effect they might
have on the jury.
As noted at trial, Appellant's defense was one of self-defense and the
lack of requisite specific intent. The photographs that were admitted were
relevant to show the utter brutality of the beating Appellant inflicted upon Mitchell
Jones with Appellant's bare hands. They were relevant to show it was not one or
two punches delivered to disarm an alleged attacker, but depicted a massive
amount of bleeding and hemorrhaging sustained by the decedent. They were
relevant to show that the struggle and the attack was not in an isolated location
where the parties stood but extended throughout Appellant's bedroom.
Furthermore, at trial Appellant, through experts, argued that Mitchell Jones
did not die from the beating inflicted by Appellant, but rather Appellant only
inflicted superficial injuries which due to the decedent's level of cocaine
intoxication allowed for the hemorrhaging and excessive bleeding. Therefore, it
was Appellant himself who placed the amount of blood and the nature of
10
bleeding into issue in furtherance of his defense. The photographs were relevant
to show the location, source, and amount of bleeding.
To the extent Appellant argues that the photographs would have been
more appropriately admitted in black and white this Court carefully reviewed the
proffered black and white photographs and determined that due to the amount of
debris and clutter throughout Appellant's bedroom and the fact that there was a
black trash bag covering decedent's head, decedent was wearing a black
sleeveless t-shirt and found lying next to what appears to be a black circular
object with dark colored magazine clippings and photographs on the floor under
and around decedent, the black and white photographs did not provide sufficient
detail or contrast as to what was blood evidence versus what was clutter and
other items within the room.
In addition, in order to prove Appellant's intent the Commonwealth
proffered evidence that there was a significant amount of decedent's blood found
inside of the black trash bag suggesting that the bag was placed over the
decedent's head and upper torso while he was still alive. The black and white
photographs would not accurately depict the relationship between the dark
congealed blood and the black trash bag in a manner to allow for the jurors
understanding and comprehension of evidence as to whether a bag was placed
over decedent following his death as Appellant suggested or prior to death as the
Commonwealth alleged. With respect to photographs of decedent's arms, the
Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of hemorrhaging, bruising and
bleeding under decedent's skin. Again, due to the amount of clutter, debris and
11
other dark objects found close in proximity to decedent's body the black and
white photographs didn't sufficiently show whether the marks in the photograph
were dirt and debris or hemorrhaging as the Commonwealth alleged. The color
photographs were necessary to provide sufficient detail to allow the
Commonwealth to present arguments in furtherance of satisfying its burden of
proof.
It is noted that all of the appellate authority cited in this opinion was
handed down more than 20 years ago. Sadly, it is this Court's belief that today's
society has become considerably more desensitized to graphic images then at
previous times. The advent of the internet plus a 24 hour news cycle, coupled
with the content of popular movies and shows on cable television, all of which are
streamed in color images, often in video, have raised the threshold of what might
be required to render photographic or video evidence inflammatory.
During trial the Court carefully watched the jurors as images were
presented to them and this Court observed no outward expression of emotion or
any visceral effect from viewing a few photographs of the Decedent at the crime
scene and autopsy pictures. The jurors relatively limited exposure in terms of the
number of photographs and the duration of viewing of the photographs, helped
provide a full picture of the brutality of the beating and the circumstances of the
crime helping the jurors ascertain Appellant's true intent. The Court observed no
signs that the photographs inflamed the jury to the point that the photographs
were unfairly prejudicial.
12
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that judgment of sentence be
affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
THOMAS R. CAMPBELL
Judge
Date filed: April 26, 2018
)
COPIES
1-0riginal
1-Court Administrator -en:,�t.
1-Brian R. Sinnett, Esquire -�e.ct\"C(\\t..
1-Anthony E. Miley, Esquire-�'
1-Adams County Legal Journal-e\ft..'<'\'v\'i-
1-District & County Reports--eiYW\
1-media copy- e..o�e_
13