Opinion
No. 1D21-1934
11-30-2022
Darnell Eugene JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Ross S. Haine II, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Ross S. Haine II, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Chester Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
Darnell Eugene Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and armed burglary and sentenced to life in prison for stabbing his neighbor to death in her home. Appellant makes three arguments for reversing his conviction. However, we affirm on each one.
Appellant's first argument concerns a demonstrative exhibit used by the State during the medical examiner's testimony and closing argument to assist the jury's understanding of the seventeen stab wounds identified on the Victim's body. The exhibit consists of a one minute and fifty-five second video showing a computer-generated animation depicting the mannequin-type figure of a woman. The animation uses a ruler-like projection to show the path of each of the stab wounds made into the Victim's body. The exhibit appeared at trial in conjunction with the medical examiner's testimony and assisted his explanation and description of each stab wound. It also showed the location of each stab wound in relation to the others. Towards the end of the animation, all the ruler-markers were displayed together at once showing the position of all the stab wounds. The prosecutor also used the animation during closing argument.
Appellant objected to this exhibit on grounds that it was misleading in making it appear that the Victim was stabbed seventeen times simultaneously at once. Appellant also objected that the animation used a figure which was more svelte than the actual Victim, which tended to mislead the jury because the depth of the stab wounds was not as proportionally deep into the Victim's body as presented by the ruler in the animation. We find no error in the trial court's decision to overrule the objection.
The purpose of a demonstrative exhibit is to aid the jury's understanding. State v. Duncan , 894 So. 2d 817, 829–31 (Fla. 2004). Demonstrative exhibits can be used when they are relevant and provide a reasonably accurate reproduction of the objects and incident involved. Brooks v. State , 175 So. 3d 204, 240 (Fla. 2015). Whether a demonstrative exhibit constitutes a sufficiently accurate reproduction is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. Id. ; Walker v. State , 82 So. 3d 115, 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (finding that the trial court's determination that the demonstrative was similar enough to the weapon used was not an abuse of discretion). In this case, we agree with the State that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the demonstrative exhibit. This exhibit did not attempt to recreate the scene of the stabbing incident, so it is immaterial that the Victim was not stabbed seventeen times at once. Rather, the medical examiner used the animation to assist his explanation and the jury's understanding of the location of the various wounds on the Victim's body.
Next, Appellant takes issue with several autopsy and crime scene photographs introduced into evidence. Appellant argues that the photos are cumulative and overly gruesome. We review the trial court's acceptance of the photos into evidence for abuse of discretion. Reynolds v. State , 346 So.3d 1256, 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). "Graphic photographs of a victim's injuries are admissible if they are relevant and not so shocking in nature as to defeat the value of their relevance." Id. (quoting Jackson v. State , 212 So. 3d 505, 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ). "[T]he test for admissibility of photographic evidence is relevancy," not necessity. Jennings v. State , 123 So. 3d 1101, 1126 (Fla. 2013). But relevant photos are inadmissible if the probative value is "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice ... or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2021). Of course, some amount of prejudice is inherent when a violent murder is the subject of the evidence. See Doorbal v. State , 983 So. 2d 464, 498 (Fla. 2008). When a defendant objects to graphic photo evidence, the trial court must decide whether "the gruesomeness of the portrayal is so inflammatory as to create an undue prejudice in the minds of the jury and [distract] them from a fair and unimpassioned consideration of the evidence." Reynolds , 346 So.3d at 1259. Here, we agree with the State that there was no abuse of discretion. The photos presented relevant evidence that depicted the nature, extent, and location of the Victim's wounds and of the scene. And because the photos were not needlessly cumulative, inflammatory, or unfairly prejudicial, we see no abuse of discretion with their admission.
Finally, we find no merit in Appellant's claims that the trial court erred by denying his motions for mistrial based upon allegedly improper prosecutorial comments.
Appellant's judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED .
Rowe, C.J., and Lewis and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.