The court ruled on the admissibility of various photographs in a second-degree murder trial where the accused admitted to killing his mother, and the sole issue was intent.
The court admitted scene and autopsy photographs, finding their probative value in illustrating the crime scene, supporting expert testimony, and detailing injuries outweighed their prejudicial effect.
However, a "before" photograph of the deceased and a "harrowing" "after" photograph of her severely injured face were deemed inadmissible due to their inflammatory nature and low probative value compared to the pathologist's verbal testimony, which was considered the primary source of information regarding the extent of force used.
