ANDREW JOSEPH DYKEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Andrew Dyken appeals his first-degree murder conviction, challenging the admission of a gruesome autopsy photograph of the victim. The Florida Supreme Court reverses and remands for a new trial, finding the photograph was unduly prejudicial and lacked independent probative value.
The photograph was inadmissible because it lacked independent probative value and could have had no purpose or effect other than to inflame the jury. In a first-degree murder case without recommendation of mercy, such an error is presumed prejudicial.
“competent and material evidence should not be excluded merely because it may have a tendency to influence and prejudice the jury beyond the strict limits of the purpose for which it is admissible”
The State's argument for admitting the photograph, citing established precedent that prejudicial tendency alone does not warrant exclusion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDyken was convicted of first-degree murder without recommendation of mercy. The victim had been shot in the head with a shotgun. At trial, the State i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Photographic Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court entered consequent upon a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy.
The record before us discloses a brutal and shocking crime. The only point raised which is of merit is the propriety of the admission in evidence of an indescribably horrible photograph of the deceased lying on a mortuary slab. The deceased had been shot in the head with a shotgun. The State contends that there was no error in the admission of this photograph because it showed the fatal woimd of the deceased. Authority is cited in support of this contention to the effect that competent and material evidence should not be excluded merely because it may have a tendency to influence and prejudice the jury beyond the strict limits of the purpose for which it is admissible. Lindberg v. State, 134 Fla. 786, 184 So. 662; Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625; 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 11th ed., Sec. 773. This argument, however, presupposes that the photograph was independently relevant. We find that it was not. The location of the wound was freely conceded and abundantly proved by other evidence. The photograph did not include any part of the-locus of the crime and was too far in time and space therefrom to have any independent probative value. We agree with appellant that the introduction of this photograph in evidence could have had no purpose or effect other than to inflame the minds of the jurors. We cannot say, in a first degree murder case without recommendation of mercy, that an error of this character and magnitude was not prejudicial. It follows that the judgment appealed from must therefore be, and it is hereby, reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur. TERRELL, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Leach v. State, 132 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1961)…victim had not been moved from the scene of the crime. In the one picture the body was actually moved slightly from the position into which it had collapsed in order to reveal the knife protruding from the back. By contrast in Dyken v. State, Fla., 89 So. 2d 866 we reversed a first degree murder conviction because of the allowance into evidence of an extremely gruesome and gory picture of the upper body and head of the victim photographed on a mortuary slab with a backdrop of pillows after the body had been…
-
Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1964)…The cause of death had been clearly established and there was no fact or circumstance in issue which necessitated or justified the introduction of the photographs of the dead bodies. Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625; Dyken v. State, Fla., 89 So. 2d 866. As above indicated, in view of our statutory obligation under Section 924.32, Flor [*864] ida Statutes, F.S.A., we have concluded that this conviction must be reversed and the cause retried with the elimination of ■the erroneous aspects which we h…
-
Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)…ld justify exhibiting the picture to the jury. And the picture itself depicted nothing that could be called gruesome or gory. In Lindberg et al. v. State, 134 Fla. 786, 184 So. 662; Mardorff. v. State, 143 Fla. 64, 196 So. 625; Dyken v. State, Fla., 89 So. 2d 866 ; Leach v. State, Fla., 132 So. 2d 329, we discussed the admissibility of photographs, when shown to be material even though revolting. There is no need to elaborate on this subject because there is nothing in this picture or in the other four that…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mardorff v. State, 143 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1940)
- Lindberg v. State, 134 Fla. 786 (Fla. 1938)