State of Tennessee v. Curtis Scott Harper - concurring ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT KNOXVILLE
    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CURTIS SCOTT HARPER
    Criminal Court for Knox County
    No. 99747
    No. E2014-01077-CCA-R3-CD – Filed November 3, 2015
    JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., concurring.
    I believe that the majority opinion provided an excellent discussion of the
    photographs and subsequent legal analysis of their admissibility; I write separately only to
    amplify the gruesome and appalling nature of the photographs. “Surely, there is a line
    between admitting a photograph which is of some help to the jury in solving the facts of
    the case and one which is of no value other than to inflame the minds of the jurors. That
    line was crossed in this case.” People v. Burns, 
    241 P.2d 308
    , 319 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App.
    1952). The photographs in this case were, without a doubt, the most grotesque,
    horrifying, and unnecessary photographs that I have viewed in 17 years on this court.
    These photographs served no purpose other than “to arouse passion and shock at the sight
    of a gory event.” Clark v. Com., 
    833 S.W.2d 793
    , 794-95 (Ky. 1991). As the majority
    opinion correctly concludes, the State was more than able to present a compelling case for
    conviction without the addition of the grisly autopsy and crime scene photographs. The
    photographs were overwhelmingly prejudicial to the defendant, and the gruesome nature
    and sheer volume of the photographs comes close to indicating a lack of respect for the
    victims themselves. A combination of overzealous prosecuting and weak gatekeeping by
    the trial court can result in an unfair trial for a defendant. That is precisely what
    happened in this case. The trial court repeatedly expressed apprehension about the
    admission of the photographs. The trial court should have stood firm in its concerns and
    warnings and prevented the prosecutor’s overzealous prosecution of the defendant. The
    failure to do so requires a remand and a new trial in this case. I am authorized by Judge
    Norma McGee Ogle to say she also joins in this concurring opinion.
    _________________________________
    JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E2014-01077-CCA-R3-CD

Judges: Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.

Filed Date: 11/3/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/3/2015