Amburgey v. State, 69S00-9708-CR-431

• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
• Citation: 696 N.E.2d 44
• Docket Number: No. 69S00-9708-CR-431,69S00-9708-CR-431
• Parties: Billy Wayne AMBURGEY, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
• Decision Date: 18 June 1998

Page 44

696 N.E.2d 44 Billy Wayne AMBURGEY, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). No. 69S00-9708-CR-431. Supreme Court of Indiana. June 18, 1998.

Page 45

Leanna Weissmann, Rising Sun, for Appellant.

Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General, Katherine Modesitt, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellee.

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

A jury found appellant Billy W. Amburgey guilty of murder. ¹ The court sentenced him to fifty-five years executed time. In this direct appeal, Amburgey asserts that the trial court erred by admitting a photograph of the victim at the crime scene and by refusing to give an instruction he tendered on reasonable doubt. We affirm.

Facts

The evidence most favorable to the verdict shows that on April 25, 1996, Amburgey approached Anthony Collins in a parking lot in Batesville, Indiana. Amburgey wanted to talk about their former relationship, which Collins had terminated two months earlier. When Collins refused to talk, Amburgey grabbed him by his coat. Collins then shouted that he did not want to talk.

Two security guards, seeing what appeared to be a fight, ordered the men to separate. Amburgey released Collins' coat and stepped three feet back. He raised a handgun with his right hand and shot Collins in the chest. As Collins staggered towards a guardrail, Amburgey shot him twice more. Collins eventually fell down near the guard shack, where Amburgey approached him and shot him one final time. An autopsy revealed that Collins died from massive body trauma caused by lacerations to a lung, the liver, and the heart.

I. Admission of Photograph

Amburgey objects to the admission of a bloody, close-up photograph of the victim's face at the crime scene. He contends the picture was irrelevant because he did not dispute shooting or killing the victim. Even if it was relevant, he argues, its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value and should have been excluded.

The admission of photographic evidence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court; we will not reverse absent an abuse of discretion. Barnes v. State, 634 N.E.2d 46 (Ind.1994). Even gory and revolting photographs may be admissible as long as they are relevant to some material issue or show scenes that a witness could describe orally. Jackson v. State, 597 N.E.2d 950 (Ind.1992). A relevant photograph, of course, should be excluded if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Ind. Evidence Rule...