State v. Wright

• Decision Date: 19 July 1972
• Docket Number: No. 41374,41374
• Citation: 265 So.2d 361
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Kenneth Ray WRIGHT, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 361

265 So.2d 361

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Kenneth Ray WRIGHT, Respondent.

No. 41374.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 19, 1972.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles Corces, Jr., Tampa, for petitioner.

Meredith J. Cohen and Edward J. Hanlon, Jr. & Partners, Orlando, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in this cause which is reported at 250 So.2d 333 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1971). The pertinent facts are given in the opinion below. It is our judgment that the decision should be quashed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Certiorari was granted to resolve the conflict between the decision below and Henninger v. State, 251 So.2d 862 (Fla.1971), as to the proper test of admissibility into evidence of allegedly gruesome and inflammatory photographs. After reviewing precedent, including its own carefully reasoned Albritton v. State, 221 So.2d 192 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1971) decision, the District Court conceived the test to be this: if inflammatory and gruesome in character, technical relevance is insufficient to support the admissibility of photographs; to be admissible, such photographs must tend to resolve a conflict in evidence relating to a disputed, vital issue, or have a direct bearing on the most vital issue of the case.

However, in Henninger, supra, this Court announced a different view:

'Appellant's Point Four for error is based on the admission into evidence of a series of 'gruesome, enlarged color photographs' which, says appellant, were not relevant and were prejudicial and inflammatory in effect. These photographs, specifically exhibits 3, 4 and 6, show the deceased in various positions showing the knife wounds in the back and with her head half cut off. Cited in support of appellant's contention is Young v. State, (4. 234 So.2d 341 (Fla.1970)) wherein this Court held that the introduction of 22 photographs taken away from the scene of the crime and showing all or portions of the partially decomposed torso of the victim was unduly prejudicial. Appellant interprets the Young case 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 insufficient by itself to constitute reversible error, but the admission of such photographs, particularly in large numbers must have same (sic) relevancy, either independently or as corroborative of other evidence."

Thus, the current position of this Court is that allegedly gruesome and inflammatory photographs are admissible into evidence if relevant to any issue required to be proven in a case. Relevancy is to be determined in...