¶ 1 Jonathan Alexander Hayes (“defendant”) appeals from judgments entered 4 June 2019 following his conviction for reckless driving, possession of drug paraphernalia, felony death by vehicle, driving without a license, and second-degree murder. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting two autopsy photographs. For the following reasons, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and find no error in defendants trial.
I. Background
¶ 2 On 5 December 2016, a New Hanover County grand jury indicted defendant for second-degree murder, reckless driving, possession of drug paraphernalia, felony death by vehicle, and operating a vehicle without a license.
¶ 3 The matter came on for trial on 24 May 2019 in New Hanover County Superior Court, the Honorable R. Kent Harrell presiding. The States evidence tended to show as follows.
¶ 4 On 1 November 2016, witnesses in the Monkey Junction area of Wilmington observed a grey full-sized pick-up truck being driven in an erratic manner. Witnesses observed that the driver, later identified as defendant, was having difficulty maintaining his lane, crossed the median, and drove on the wrong side of the road. The truck approached a red stop light where two vehicles were stopped in defendants lane of travel. Defendant failed to stop and hit the last vehicle in the lane, a Hyundai Sonata driven by Alexandria Williams (“Williams”). Officer Dwayne Ouellette testified that the police department estimated defendant was driving at approximately 43 miles per hour, below the posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour, when he struck Williams’ vehicle.
¶ 5 Williams, who was pregnant at the time, was driving with her husband and two young children: two-year-old M.R.
1
and three-year-old J.R. Although both children were properly secured in car seats, M.R. was killed by blunt force trauma to the head due to the impact from defendants truck. Defendants truck came to a stop “a couple hundred yards down the road” close to the median. New Hanover County Sheriffs Deputy Brandon Gueiss (“Deputy Gueiss”), who was off-duty at the time, saw the truck in the road and upon approaching the drivers side door, found defendant unresponsive and slumped over the wheel of the truck. Deputy Gueiss pulled defendant out of the truck to render aid and observed heroin bindles, a Narcan kit, and a bag of needles on the floorboard of the truck. Lieutenant Brent Guy administered two milligrams of Narcan to defendant via intranasal spray with no effect, and another two milligrams of Narcan intravenously which caused defendant to rapidly regain consciousness.
¶ 6 Defendant was transported to New Hanover Regional Medical Center and was evaluated by drug recognition expert Officer Eric Lippert (“Officer Lippert”). After an extensive evaluation, Officer Lippert concluded that defendant was suffering from opioid impairment at the time of the crash. Blood and urine samples were taken from defendant at the hospital. Sample analysis showed that defendant had alprazolam (also known as Xanax), cocaine metabolite, and diphenhydramine (found in Tylenol PM or Benadryl) in his system. No opioids were detected in defendants system. Aaron Joncich, the forensic scientist manager in the toxicology section at the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory, testified that some low-dose drugs such as fentanyl are effective in very small concentrations and accordingly “the concentration in the persons blood is much lower and much harder to detect” by the State Bureau of Investigations (“SBI”) instruments.
¶ 7 Multiple autopsy photographs of M.R. were admitted into evidence. Two of the photographs taken during the autopsy, introduced as States Exhibits 27 and 28, showed M.R.’s skull cap and brain. Defendants trial counsel objected to the admission of the photographs, arguing that there was no dispute regarding the mechanism of injury and death in the case and the “photographs and the exhibits are of little relevance.” The trial court overruled the objection, stating that “stipulations from the defendant dont limit the States ability to introduce its case when it has elements that its required to prove[,]” and accordingly allowed the photographs to be introduced, specifically limiting the use of the States Exhibits 27 and 28 for the witness to “use the actual photograph to explain his testimony,” without the photographs being displayed on the large screen display in the courtroom.
¶ 8 Dr. John Almeida (“Dr. Almeida”), who performed the forensic autopsy on M.R., provided testimony regarding the autopsy photographs. Dr. Almeida testified that he performed the autopsy on 2 November 2016, generated a report, and took a series of photographs documenting the findings of the autopsy. The State moved to introduce the autopsy photographs as illustrative evidence and defendants trial counsel renewed the objection, which the trial court overruled. With respect to Exhibit 27, Dr. Almeida explained that the photograph depicted the skull cap, which is removed to access the brain. Dr. Almeida noted that the photograph showed a “black blood clot referred to as a hematoma” on the right side of the skull cap, which corresponded to a previous photograph that showed swelling on the right side of M.R.’s head. With respect to Exhibit 28, Dr. Almeida explained that it depicted the bottom half of the skull after the brain was removed, with a large fracture area visible on the right side of the skull as well as three other fractures. Dr. Almeida testified that based on the autopsy of M.R., the cause of death was blunt trauma with skull fractures.
¶ 9 At the close of the States evidence, defendants trial counsel made a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence, which the trial court denied. At the close of all evidence, defendants trial counsel renewed the general motion to dismiss, with an additional motion that there was insufficient malice to support the second-degree murder charge. The trial court denied both motions.
¶ 10 On 4 June 2019, the jury found defendant guilty of all charges. The trial court arrested judgment on the felony death by vehicle conviction. The trial court consolidated defendants convictions for second-degree murder, reckless driving, and driving without a license into one judgment and sentenced defendant to 180 to 228 months incarceration, as well as a sentence of 120 days incarceration for possession of drug paraphernalia. The judgments were ordered to run consecutively.
¶ 11 Defendant filed written notice of appeal on 17 June 2019.
II. Analysis
¶ 12 Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting States Exhibits 27 and 28, alleging that the photographs were irrelevant and inflammatory and served only to inflame the jurys passions. We disagree.
¶ 13 We review the trial courts decision to admit “evidence pursuant to Rule 403 for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Peterson, 361 N.C. 587, 602, 652 S.E.2d 216, 227 (2007) (citing State v. Al-Bayyinah, 359 N.C. 741, 747-48, 616 S.E.2d 500, 506-507 (2005)). “In our review, we consider not whether we might disagree with the trial court, but whether the trial courts actions are fairly supported by the record.” Id. at 603, 652 S.E.2d at 227 (quoting State v. Lasiter, 361 N.C. 299, 302, 643 S.E.2d 909, 911 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted). “Whether the use of photographic evidence is more probative than prejudicial and what constitutes an excessive number of photographs in the light of the illustrative value of each likewise lies within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279, 285, 372 S.E.2d 523, 527 (1988) (citing State v. Sledge, 297 N.C. 227, 254 S.E.2d 579 (1979)). “Abuse of discretion results where the courts ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Id. (citing State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 249, 337 S.E.2d 497 (1985)).
¶ 14 We have held that “[p]hotographs are usually competent to be used by a witness to explain or illustrate anything that it is competent for him to describe in words.” State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76, 98, 552 S.E.2d 596, 613 (2001) (quoting State v. Watson, 310 N.C. 384, 397, 312 S.E.2d 448, 457 (1984)). “Photographs of a homicide victim may be introduced even if they are gory, gruesome, horrible or revolting, so long as they are used for illustrative purposes and so long as their excessive or repetitious use is not aimed solely at arousing the passions of the jury.” State v. Blakeney, 352 N.C. 287, 309-10, 531 S.E.2d 799, 816 (2000) (quoting Hennis, 323 N.C. at 284, 372 S.E.2d at 526). “This Court has rarely held the use of photographic evidence to be unfairly prejudicial[.]” State v. Bare, 194 N.C. App. 359, 364, 669 S.E.2d 882, 886 (2008) (quoting State v. Robinson, 327 N.C. 346, 357, 395 S.E.2d 402, 409 (1990)).
¶ 15 In the present case, the challenged photographs were introduced to illustrate testimony by Dr. Almeida about the nature of the injuries to M.R., as well as the cause of death. The trial court admitted the photographs for illustrative purposes only and specifically limited the use and display of States Exhibits 27 and 28. The transcript reveals that the photographs were used briefly to illustrate Dr. Almeidas testimony about internal fractures that supported Dr. Almeidas conclusion that the cause of death was blunt force trauma. Because the photographs were used for an illustrative purpose and were not used excessively or repeatedly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs.
III. Conclusion
¶ 16 For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in admitting States Exhibits 27 and 28, and find no other error in defendants trial.
NO ERROR.
Report per Rule 30(e).
FOOTNOTES
1
. Initials are used throughout the opinion to protect the identity of the juveniles.
ARROWOOD, Judge.
Judges DILLON and MURPHY concur.