Bauldree v. State, s. 42011
| Citation | 284 So.2d 196 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 42011,42157,s. 42011 |
| Parties | John Phillip BAULDREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Edward R. Kirkland, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This consolidated cause is before us to review by writ of habeas corpus two convictions of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy and sentence of death imposed by the Circuit Court in and for Orange County. Subsequent to the defendant's convictions under authority of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), this Court in Anderson v. State, 267 So.2d 8 (Fla.1972), reduced the defendant's sentence from death to life imprisonment. We dispense with oral argument as unnecessary. See F.A.R., Rule 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A. We now consider the defendant's grounds urged for reversal.
The defendant's first point concerns the admissibility into evidence of allegedly gruesome and inflammatory photographs. The photographs in question consist of six color photographs of the defendant's slain wife and her slain father in the room where their bodies were found.
In one photograph, one of the bodies had been slightly moved. The defendant argues that under authority of 13 Fla.Jur., Evidence, § 296, such photographs taken after the body has been moved should be held inadmissible. The defendant's argument is without merit, for the only photograph in which the bodies were moved is Exhibit number nine, the only photograph the defendant recognizes as admissible.
As to the remaining photographs, defendant asserts that the test to be utilized to determine their admissibility is the 'necessity' test which was established in Albritton v. State, 221 So.2d 192 (Fla.App.2d, 1969). The Albritton test was stated as follows:
1
This Court, however, has announced a different view. In State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361 (Fla.1972), we commented on and stated the proper test as follows:
'. . . Appellant interprets the Young case (Young v. State, 234 So.2d 341 (Fla.1970)) as holding that 'necessity' rather than 'relevancy' is the test for admissibility of gruesome photographs. 'Necessity' may be a consideration where, as in Young, large numbers of cumulative photographs of a gruesome nature taken away from the scene of the crime, are offered into evidence. But relevancy remains the basic test, as stated in Young: (5.Id. at 347)
'The fact that the photographs are offensive to our senses and might tend to inflame the jury is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hertz v. State
...461 So.2d 936, 939 (Fla.1984) (holding "necessity" is not the test for the admissibility of allegedly gruesome photos); Bauldree v. State, 284 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla.1973) (same); State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla.1972) (same). It is clear that photographs are admissible, notwithstandin......
-
Brumbley v. State, 56006
...testimony about the circumstances of the murder and the identity of the victim, and were therefore admissible. See Bauldree v. State, 284 So.2d 196 (Fla.1973); State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361 Appellant argues that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on second-degree felony murde......
-
Straight v. State, 52460
...because of decomposition. The basic test of admissibility of photographs, however, is not necessity, but relevance. Bauldree v. State, 284 So.2d 196 (Fla.1973). Photographs can be relevant to a material issue either independently or by corroborating other evidence. State v. Wright, 265 So.2......
-
Welty v. State
...to the jury. The test of admissibility of these photographs is relevancy to an issue required to be proven in a case. Bauldree v. State, 284 So.2d 196 (Fla.1973); Young v. State, 234 So.2d 341 (Fla.1970). Applying this test of admissibility, we find the photographs were relevant. They assis......