State v. Wright, 265 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Wright, 265 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Allegedly gruesome and inflammatory photographs are admissible if relevant to any issue required to be proven in the case, with cumulative nature and location of photography treated as routine relevancy factors.

In a felony murder prosecution, the trial court admitted photographs of the victim's body and wounds. The district court reversed, holding that gruesome photographs require a higher standard than mere relevance. The supreme court resolves a conflict in precedent by reaffirming that the basic test for admissibility of allegedly gruesome and inflammatory photographs is relevancy. The court determines that factors such as whether the photographs are cumulative or taken away from the scene are routine considerations in determining relevancy, not independent grounds for exclusion. Because the photographs at issue were relevant to establishing the victim's identity and depicting specific wounds, the district court erred in reversing their admission. The court also addresses jury instructions regarding permissible felonies, finding the trial court properly instructed the jury on the felonies supported by the evidence.

39 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Geico Cas. Co., 127 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 362 Admissibility of gruesome photographs based on relevancy13 citing cases“whether photographed away from the scene,”3 citing courts quote it
  • Smith v. Geico Cas. Co., 127 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).published
    A videotape, like a still photograph may be admissible, “if relevant to any issue required to be proven in a case,” State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla.1972), “unless it is barred by a rule of exclusion or its admission fails a balanc…
  • Bryant v. State, 810 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).published
    A videotape, like a still photograph, may be admissible "if relevant to any issue required to be proven in a case," State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1972), "unless it is barred by a rule of exclusion or its admission fails a balan…
  • Hertz v. State, 803 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2001).published
    The admissibility of photographs, even if gruesome, is not predicated on "necessity." See Bush v. State, 461 So.2d 936, 939 (Fla.1984) (holding "necessity" is not the test for the admissibility of allegedly gruesome photos); Bauldree v. St…
  • Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Zapata, 601 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).published
    State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1972); accord Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 906 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 556 , 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981).
  • Kingery v. State, 523 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).published
    The test for admissibility of photographic evidence is whether the photograph is "relevant to any issue required to be proven in a given case." Adams v. State, 412 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 , 103 S.Ct. 182 , 74…
  • Jennings v. State, 512 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1987).published
    Bush v. State, 461 So.2d 936, 939-940 (Fla. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031 , 106 S.Ct. 1237 , 89 L.Ed.2d 345 (1986); State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1972).
  • Bush v. State, 461 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1984).published
    State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1972) (emphasis supplied).
  • Wilson v. State, 436 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 1983).published
    This Court has held on numerous occasions that photographs will be admissible into evidence "if relevant to any issue required to be proven in a case." State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1972).
  • Adams v. State, 412 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1982).published
    The guidelines to be followed in determining the admissibility of photographic evidence were set forth by this Court in State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1972), as follows: [T]he current position of this Court is that allegedly gru…
  • State v. Piskorski, 419 A.2d 866 (Conn. 1979).published
    In the trial of any capital case or any ease involving imprisonment for life, the court may, in its discretion, require the jury to remain together in charge of the sheriff during the trial and until they are discharged by the court from f…
Show 3 more citing cases
  • Allen v. State, 340 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).published
    As the Florida Supreme Court held in State v. Wright, 265 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 1972), photographs taken at the scene of a crime, which are alleged to be gruesome and inflammatory, will be admissible into evidence if they are relevant to an…
  • Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981).published
  • Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 410 (5th Cir. 1982).published
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Kenneth Ray WRIGHT, Respondent.
41374.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 19, 1972.
Published opinion
265 So. 2d 361
Per Curiam.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published

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[*362] 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 the normal manner, that is, without regard to any special characterization of the proffered evidence. Under this conception, the issues of "whether cumulative", or "whether photographed away from the scene," are routine issues basic to a determination of relevancy, and not issues arising from any "exceptional nature" of the proffered evidence.

In the instant case, the photographs discussed in the District Court's opinion met the test of relevancy. Exhibit 26 was relevant to establishment of the identity of the person in the grave as being the deceased named in the indictment. Exhibits 27 and 28 each depict a wound or wounds not depicted by the other, or by Exhibit 26. These exhibits were properly admitted by the trial court, and the District Court erred in reversing on this point.

The District Court also held that, upon request in a felony murder prosecution, it is incumbent upon the trial court to charge the jury upon the specific ingredients making up each permissible felony under the evidence.[1] While we agree with this as a proper statement of law, the District Court went beyond it in application. The permissible felonies, under the evidence, were those upon which the State based its felony murder case, i.e., crime against nature and rape; these felonies, as well as premeditated murder, were the subject of the trial judge's instructions.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision under review is quashed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, Acting C.J., CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., and DREW, J. (Retired), concur.

1 In its discussion of this issue at 250 So.2d 340, the District Court erroneously treated Coppolino v. State, 223 So.2d 68 (2nd D.C.A.Fla. 1969) as if it were a decision of this Court. Our action in that case was limited to dismissing Coppolino's appeal without opinion; see 234 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1969).