Love v. State, S89A0191
| Decision Date | 05 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. S89A0191,S89A0191 |
| Citation | 383 S.E.2d 897,259 Ga. 468 |
| Parties | LOVE v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A. Kristina Cook Connelly and Bobby Lee Cook, Cook & Palmour, Summerville, for Shirley Love.
Ralph Van Pelt, Jr., Dist. Atty., Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit, Lafayette and Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Richard C. Litwin, Atlanta, for the State.
Shirley Love shot and killed her husband, Grady Love, with a handgun. She was indicted for murder, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment. 1
Her sole ground for appeal is the introduction of a certain photograph which, she contends, is unusually gruesome, repetitious of evidence previously submitted, and irrelevant and immaterial to any element of proof involved in the trial of the case.
1. The photograph depicts a portion of the victim's head, displaying the wound inflicted by the fatal projectile.
2. The rule that governs this appeal is that laid down in Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 867, 302 S.E.2d 347 (1983), as follows:
We take this opportunity to announce a rule to assist counsel in the future in deciding what photos may be offered in evidence. A photograph which depicts the victim after autopsy incisions are made or after the state of the body is changed by authorities or the pathologist will not be admissible unless necessary to show some material fact which becomes apparent only because of the autopsy. A photograph which shows mutilation of a victim resulting from the crime against him may, however, gruesome, have relevance to the trial of his alleged assailant. The necessary further mutilation of a body at autopsy has no such relevance and may cause confusion, if not prejudice, in the minds of jurors.
It is unquestioned that the photograph at issue here shows the "mutilation of a victim resulting from the crime against him," and in no way is connected with any "further mutilation of a body at autopsy."
Accordingly, under the rule of Brown, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
1 The homicide was committed on August 25, 1988. The defendant was indicted for the offense of malice murder by the grand jury of Chattooga County on February 6, 1989, and was convicted of the offense of murder on March 1, 1989. She was sentenced to life imprisonment on that date. A motion for new trial was filed on March 20, 1989, and denied on May 15, 1989. After filing notice of appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reddin v. State
...victim resulting from the crime against him may, however gruesome, have relevance to the trial of his alleged assailant." Love v. State, 259 Ga. 468(2), 383 S.E.2d 897. Appellant failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the 5. Appellant's contention that the trial c......
-
Davis v. State
...386 S.E.2d 316 and no grounds for reversal. 12. There was no error in the admission of photographs of the victim. Love v. State, 259 Ga. 468(2), 383 S.E.2d 897 (1989); Scott v. State, 250 Ga. 195(2), 297 S.E.2d 18 13. Our death penalty laws are not unconstitutional for any reason alleged. 1......
-
Dudley v. State, A90A1865
...v. State, 177 Ga.App. 604, 608(3), 340 S.E.2d 631 (1986); Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 866(5), 302 S.E.2d 347 (1983); Love v. State, 259 Ga. 468(2), 383 S.E.2d 897 (1989); Jones v. State, 249 Ga. 605, 608(2a), 293 S.E.2d 708 (1982). 2. Defendant contends that as to the other two convictions......