State of North Carolina v. Charlie Archie Norris, Jr.

242 N.C. 47, 86 S.E.2d 916

April 3, 1955

Facts:
Norris ws driving when his car hit that of a certain Mrs. Peterson’s which also had
the latter’s daughter in the car. It was found out that at the night of the accident, Norris
was driving wobbly despite the heavy traffic and the dark. He was also driving without
lights and at a speed between 50 and 60 mph. Unable to discover his approach because
of the darkness and the absence of lights on his car, Mrs. Patterson entered the
intersection, cleared it except for about 3 feet, when the defendant's car smashed into
hers. As a result of the accident, Mrs. Peterson’s daughter, Karen, died two days later.
During the trial by the jury, a photograph showing the position of the cars just after the
incident was shown by the judge to the jury stating that the photographs were to be
treated as mere corroborative evidence and not substantial evidence.

Issue:
Whether or not the photograph may be used as (a substantial) evidence in itself.

Ruling:
Yes, the photograph may be used as a substantial evidence.

Photographs may not be admitted as substantive evidence but, where there is

evidence of the accuracy of a photograph, a witness may use it for the restricted
purpose of explaining or illustrating to the jury his testimony relevant and material to
some matter in controversy.

Here, the policeman who was driving behind Norris before he turned to the street
where the accident occurred said that the photographs were taken just after the
accident happened. The accuracy of the photograph being established, the court erred
in treating it as a mere corroborative evidenc and not as a substantial evidence in
itself.

Photographs frequently convey information to the jury and the court with an
accuracy not permissible to spoken words, if their admission is properly guarded by
inquiry as to the time and manner when taken. But they have since become a
well-recognized means of evidence, and are not infrequently used on trials below, and
are sometimes sent up in the record on appeal, especially in actions for personal
injuries. It has been held in several cases in our reports that the ordinary photograph,
when shown to be a true representation and taken under proper safeguards, is
admissible in evidence and the same rule prevails as to photographs taken by the X-ray
process.