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 562 (1948).
Related Articles
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)
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 ...
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. Jensen, 40 A.3d 771 (R.I. 2012)
The state then introduced a photograph of bubble gum, which photograph was later marked as a full exhibit
State v. Robbins, 666 A.2d 85 (Me. 1995)
The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, and the photographic lineup was relevant to and probative of the accuracy of the witness's identification of Robbins as the perpetrator. M.R.Evid. 401, 402, 403. ...