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.
Appellants first argument concerns a demonstrative exhibit used by the State during the medical examiners testimony and closing argument to assist the jurys understanding of the seventeen stab wounds identified on the Victims 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 Victims body. The exhibit appeared at trial in conjunction with the medical examiners 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 Victims body as presented by the ruler in the animation. We find no error in the trial courts decision to overrule the objection.
The purpose of a demonstrative exhibit is to aid the jurys 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 courts 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 jurys understanding of the location of the various wounds on the Victims 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 courts acceptance of the photos into evidence for abuse of discretion. Reynolds v. State, --- So. 3d ----, 2022 WL 3222528, *2, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1695 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 10, 2022). “Graphic photographs of a victims 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, 2022 WL 3222528 at *2. 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 Victims 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 Appellants claims that the trial court erred by denying his motions for mistrial based upon allegedly improper prosecutorial comments.
Appellants judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM.
ROWE, C.J., and LEWIS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.