Accetta v. Provencal, 962 A.2d 56 (R.I. 2009)

Accetta v. Provencal, 962 A.2d 56 (R.I. 2009)

The trial justice allowed into evidence photographs of car accident in which the car was minimally damaged. This was allowed with an expert witness to explain that “substantial bodily injury nevertheless could result from a car accident with minimal property damage. See Davis v. Maute, 770 A.2d 36 (Del.2001).”
    • Related Articles

    • T.H. Leland v. D.R. Leonard, 112 A. 198, 95 Vt. 36 (Vt. 1921)

      The value of photographs and photographic enlargements of questioned signatures and documents is everywhere recognized. [95 Vt. 38] It is attested by this Court in Rowell v. Fuller's Estate, 59 Vt. 688, 10 A. 853. They must be properly verified, to ...
    • State v. Pulphus, 465 A.2d 153 (R.I. 1983)

      This court has always allowed the admission of X-ray photographs into evidence even though no one can testify from direct observation inside the body that they accurately represent what they purport to show. Williams v. Altruda, 74 R.I. 47, 58 A.2d ...
    • Dederichs v. Salt Lake City R. Co., 14 Utah 137, 141, 46 P. 656, 657, 35 L.R.A. 802, 807

      The court, by Miner, J., speaking of photographs excluded by the court below, said: "These photographs exhibited the surface condition of the streets, buildings, trees, cars, railroad track, poles, and distances, and would, no doubt, carry to the ...
    • State v. Pulphus, 465 A.2d 153 (R.I. 1983)

      A photograph may be admissible as substantive evidence rather than solely as illustrative evidence to support a witness's testimony, provided that sufficient foundation testimony is given to show the circumstances under which the photograph was taken ...
    • State v. Mandarelli, 254 A.2d 738, 105 R.I. 696 (R.I. 1969)

      The Judge allowed photographs that were taken by the Sergeant at the direction of the victims father (whom was informed by the victim) and not directly from the victim.