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 minds of the jury a better image of the locality of the accident and its surroundings, concerning which testimony was offered, than any oral description. Their accuracy as a faithful representation of the locality was shown as compared to the time of the accident. We think it must be deemed to be established that photographic scenes are admissible in evidence as appropriate aids to the jury in applying the evidence, whether it relates to persons, things, or places. It is a well-established rule, applied in everyday practice in courts, that diagrams and maps illustrating the scenes of a transaction, and the relative location of objects, if proved to be correct, are admissible in evidence, in order to enable the court or jury to understand and apply the established facts to the particular case. And it is difficult to see why a plain picture or representative produced by the art of photography is not admissible on like principles, if verified as a correct representation of the locality. If any difference had arisen concerning the photographs being taken at a different season of the year, it could have been explained." Johnson v. U. P. R. Co., 35 Utah 285, 100 P. 390; Harrison v. Greene, 157 Mich. 690, 122 N.W. 205; Alberti v. N.Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 118 N.Y. 77, 23 N.E. 35, 6 L.R.A. 765; Com. v. Robertson, 162 Mass. 90, 38 N.E. 25. See, also, cases collected in note to Dederichs v. Salt Lake City R. Co. (Utah) 35 L.R.A. 802, supra. The admission of the photograph was proper, and, with the explanation and caution given to the jury by the court, the rights of the defendant were further sufficiently safeguarded.
Related Articles
Peloquin v. Robert Northridge Furniture Co., 178 N.E.2d 495, 343 Mass. 317 (1961)
“A medical witness of the plaintiff in testifying to the plaintiff's injuries was permitted to use a 'Chart of Osteology' as a chalk and exhibited on the blackboard after a conference at the bench. Everson v. Casualty Co. of America, 208 Mass. 214, ...
Curtis v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 80 A. 127, 32 R.I. 542 (R.I. 1911)
The admission of photographs of places and things, for the purpose of aiding the jury in applying the facts proved to the particular case, is a matter of almost everyday occurrence in the courts.
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. 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 ...
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 ...