People v. Brannon
| Decision Date | 02 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 2598,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 165 N.W.2d 903,14 Mich.App. 690 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin BRANNON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Melvyn J. Kates, Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs & O'Connell, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, Wayne County, Barbara K. Hackett, Asst. Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before T. G. KAVANAGH, P.J., and BURNS and DALTON *, JJ.
On saturday night, October 2, 1965 a group of people gathered in the apartment of Mrs. Ernestine Avery where alcoholic beverages were consumed and a game of poker was played. At about 10:30 Mrs. Avery and 2 of her guests left the apartment for the purpose of purchasing more liquor at a nearby store. Only the defendant Marvin Brannon, Ray Revels, and Mrs. Avery's 14 year old son, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the killing of Revels, remained at the apartment. When Mrs. Avery and her companions returned from the store they found Revels, seriously wounded, lying in the doorway to the apartment. Early the next morning Revels' body was discovered in an alley quite some distance away from the Avery apartment. The body was photographed by the police department as it lay in the alley and these photographs were admitted into evidence at the trial over the objection of defense counsel.
Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, C.L.1948, § 750.317 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.549), and was sentenced to prison for 10 to 20 years.
On appeal defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting the photographs into evidence because they were not material to any point in issue, and they were so gruesome as to inflame the minds of the jurors against defendant thereby denying him a fair trial.
At the trial a separate record, out of the presence of the jury, was made on the issue of admissibility. At that time defendant objected to the admission of the photos on 2 grounds--first that they were not taken at the scene of the alleged homicide, and second that they would inflame the minds of the jurors. He did not challenge their materiality.
In general, photographs, like other kinds of demonstrative evidence, are admissible if they are helpful in illuminating any material point in issue. People v. Becker (1942), 300 Mich. 562, 2 N.W.2d 503, 139 A.L.R. 1171, and People v. Freeman (1965), 1 Mich.App. 63, 134 N.W.2d 389. In the case at bar the people were required to prove the death of the alleged murder victim, that such death was not due to natural causes, and that defendant was the killer. These photographs of the lifeless body of the deceased showing a stab wound in his neck were certainly material in the first two of these points. Defendant asserts in his brief that he did not dispute either the death of the deceased or that it was the result of unnatural causes, and for that reason such facts were not in issue. Nevertheless the record in this matter discloses that defendant did not articulate such a position at the trial, and we hold that the photographs were not inadmissible on the ground of not being material to points in issue.
Defendant's second asserted ground for reversal is that the photos were calculated to inflame the minds of the jury. In a case similar to the one before us the Illinois Supreme Court said:
'Mindful of the prejudicial emotion that might be aroused by the introduction of a victim's photograph, the courts have, on the whole, been strict in their requirement that a proper purpose be shown for the introduction of such an exhibit.' People v. Jackson (1956), 9 Ill.2d 484, 138 N.E.2d 528, 531.
The admission of photographs may be objected to because they are: 1) not material to any point in issue, see People v. Becker, S...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bryant
...30 Mich.App. 409, 429, 186 N.W.2d 381 (1971); People v. Turner, 17 Mich.App. 123, 131, 169 N.W.2d 330 (1969); People v. Brannon, 14 Mich.App. 690, 165 N.W.2d 903 (1968); People v. Rogers, 14 Mich.App. 207, 165 N.W.2d 337 (1968) (Kavanagh, J., concurring ). However, this standard was rejecte......
-
People v. Eddington
...of photographs objected to as prejudicial and inflammatory is within the discretion of the trial judge. People v. Brannon (1968), 14 Mich.App. 690, 165 N.W.2d 903; People v. Bergin, Supra; People v. Turner, Supra. Finding no clear abuse of this discretion under the facts and circumstances o......
-
People v. Turner, Docket No. 2160
...Rogers, Supra, Judge (now Justice) T. G. Kavanagh concurring. This test was reiterated in the more recent case of People v. Brannon (1968), 14 Mich.App. 690, 165 N.W.2d 903. 'The admission of photographs may be objected too because they are: 1) not material to any point in issue, see People......
-
Anderson v. Lippes
...of the admission of photographs into evidence in People v. Turner (1969), 17 Mich.App. 123, 169 N.W.2d 330; People v. Brannon (1968), 14 Mich.App. 690, 165 N.W.2d 903; and People v. Rogers (1968), 14 Mich.App. 207, 165 N.W.2d 337. 2 In each of these cases this Court recognized that the admi......