Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)

Citation
State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)
Parent Document
State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (1997)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1997-12-23

Other Sections in This Document (214)

Full Text

649 chars
Appellant’s complaint about exhibit 59 is that it shows again the position and condition of the victim’s body, which was already before the jury by admission of exhibit 58. Appellant appears to be claiming that admission of exhibit 59 was erroneous because it was cumulative, unnecessary. Even if an additional photograph of the position and the condition of the victim’s body may have been unnecessary, this Court cannot say that the admission of the exhibit was prejudicial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting any of the photographs in question; they are relevant, and their probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect.