Com. v. Kline, A.

2025 Pa. Super. 196

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: September 5, 2025
• Docket: 229 WDA 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

J-A19038-25

2025 PA Super 196

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : AUSTIN LOUIS KLINE : No. 229 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered February 19, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-11-CR-0000724-2023

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

OPINION BY BOWES, J.: FILED: September 5, 2025

The Commonwealth appeals from the order granting in part and denying

in part Austin Louis Kline’s (“Appellee”) motion in limine to exclude

introduction of gruesome photographs of the victim at trial. We vacate and

remand for further proceedings.

We offer the following summary of the Commonwealth’s allegations of

fact to support its charges against Appellee. At approximately 11:25 p.m. on

May 25, 2023, the victim’s son reported to the Pennsylvania State Police

(“PSP”) that his father had been missing for approximately seven hours. The

victim was last seen before he had traveled to Appellee’s property to complete

an excavation job that they had arranged through Facebook. Officers

proceeded to Appellee’s residence for an interview, and he consented to a

search of the property. PSP Trooper Donald Neisner noticed during his J-A19038-25

interactions with Appellee that he had a recent injury to his left hand, which

could have been consistent with a physical altercation. A K9 unit also alerted

in several areas on his property. When the K9 handler approached the

detached garage, he observed staining on the threshold of the door consistent

with human blood. The police ceased the search, secured the area, and

obtained a warrant the following day.

Upon execution, police discovered the victim’s severely mangled body

lying on the floor of the garage. He had been shot multiple times, both arms

had been amputated from his shoulders, the right side of his head was

smashed into the ground, and his neck was lacerated. Also located in the

garage were trash bags containing the victim’s severed arms. In an adjacent

debris pile, police found a landscape tamper covered in human blood and hair.

Officers located the firearm purportedly used to shoot the victim in Appellee’s

living room.

Based on the aforementioned events, Appellee was arrested and

charged with one count each of first-degree homicide, aggravated assault, and

abuse of a corpse, and five counts of tampering with or fabricating physical

evidence. The matter was scheduled for trial and proceeded to jury selection.

Appellee then filed the instant motion in limine to exclude twenty of the

photographs of the victim taken at the scene of the crime and the autopsy.

During the hearing on Appellee’s motion, the Commonwealth explained

that it needed imagery of each of the victim’s injuries to solidify the sequence

-2- J-A19038-25

of events and to prove that Appellee had the specific intent to kill. More

precisely, it informed the court that Appellee admitted to murdering the victim

during a police interview, which the Commonwealth intended to introduce at

trial. Appellee stated that he shot the victim, hit him in the head with a shovel,

and shot him again. While the victim was on the ground, he attempted to

stand, so Appellee shot him once more. Appellee then heard the victim

gurgling and proceeded to smash his head with a landscape tamper.

The Commonwealth explained to the court that since Appellee had

confessed to killing the victim, it anticipated a self-defense claim, noting that

there were also several “inconsistent statements [by Appellee] in this” case.

See N.T. Motion in Limine, 2/18/25, at 10. Thus, it believed photographs of

all the victim’s injuries were relevant to prove first-degree homicide and abuse

of a corpse, as well as to disprove self-defense. The Commonwealth also

planned to present PSP troopers and a pathologist to describe the extent and

nature of the victim’s injuries, utilizing the images for assistance. The

pathologist would further be able to testify, from visual evidence, as to when

and how the victim died, and whether certain wounds were pre- or post-

mortem.

After taking Appellee’s motion under advisement, the court issued an

order excluding fourteen of the images, several of which depicted, inter alia,

graphic detail of the victim’s smashed head, skull fragments, brain matter,

slashing to the neck, splattered flesh and copious amounts of blood on the

-3- J-A19038-25

garage floor, bruising to the body, shoulder sockets after amputation, and the

insides of the severed arms. However, the court admitted the following six

photographs in color, unless otherwise noted, subject to relevancy: P4 and

P8, depicting the bruising and wounds to the victim’s amputated arms; P11,

showing one side of the victim’s torso as he lay on the garage floor with his

head in the background, but cropped at the shoulders to omit his head and

neck; P13, of a gunshot wound to the victim’s buttocks; P17, in grayscale,

illustrating the victim’s back while lying face down on the autopsy table, with

his face turned away from the camera; and P20, depicting the victim’s torso

while lying face up on the autopsy table, but cropped at the shoulders to omit

his head and neck.

The Commonwealth timely appealed and simultaneously filed a concise

statement in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.1 The court issued a responsive

Rule 1925(a) opinion. The Commonwealth now presents the following issue

for our determination: “Did the lower court commit an abuse of discretion

where it eliminated any and all photographic evidence of the massive,

traumatic head wound of the victim in this case, thereby unfairly prejudicing

____________________________________________

1 “In a criminal case, under the circumstances provided by law, the Commonwealth may take an appeal as of right from an order that does not end the entire case where the Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution.” Pa.R.A.P. 311(d). In its notice of appeal, the Commonwealth stated that the court’s order substantially handicapped its prosecution of Appellee. See Notice of Appeal, 2/20/25.

-4- J-A19038-25

the Commonwealth’s ability to disprove self-defense and to affirmatively

prove first-degree homicide?” Commonwealth’s brief at 7 (footnote omitted).

We begin with a survey of the applicable law. This Court reviews “a trial

court’s admission of gruesome photographs . . . for an abuse of discretion.”

Commonwealth v. Walter, 119 A.3d 255, 227 (Pa. 2015).

An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused.

Commonwealth v. Bainey, 332 A.3d 66, 72 (Pa.Super. 2025) (cleaned up).

In determining whether to admit a photograph of a homicide victim, the court

must engage in the following two-part inquiry:

First, the trial court must examine whether the particular photograph is inflammatory. If the photograph is not inflammatory, it may be admitted if it is relevant and can serve to assist the jury in understanding the facts of the case. If the photograph is inflammatory, the trial court must determine whether the photograph is of such essential evidentiary value that its need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors.

Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 494 (Pa. 2015). A trial court

may abuse its discretion where it “improperly weighed the probative value of

evidence admitted against its potential for prejudicing the defendant.”

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 750 (Pa.Super. 2014) (cleaned

up).

The trial court first concluded, and we agree, that the photographs of

the victim are inflammatory. All depict the shocking and intense wounds that

-5- J-A19038-25

the Commonwealth contends that Appellee admitted to inflicting upon the

victim. Accordingly, the court was bound to determine whether the probative

value of the pictures outweighed the likelihood of prejudicing the jury. We

review the trial court’s analysis of this question with the following precepts in

mind.

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less

probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of

consequence in determining the action.” Pa.R.E. 401. Evidence is excluded

if its probative value is outweighed by “unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,

misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting

cumulative evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403. This Court has explained that “all relevant

Commonwealth evidence is meant to prejudice a defendant[,]” thus “exclusion

is limited to evidence so prejudicial that it would inflame the jury to make a

decision based upon something other than the legal propositions relevant to

the case.” Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 112 A.3d 1232, 1238 n.6

(Pa.Super. 2015) (cleaned up).

Where photographic evidence of a murder depicts gruesome imagery,

“a trial court must not merely exclude [it] based on those qualities[.]”

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1069 (Pa. 2013). Our High Court

has explained:

While recognizing that photographs of a homicide victim can be unpleasant, disturbing, and brutal, . . . there is no need to so overextend an attempt to sanitize the evidence of the condition of the body as to deprive the Commonwealth of opportunities of

-6- J-A19038-25

proof in support of the onerous burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v. Watkins, 108 A.3d 692, 724 (Pa. 2014) (cleaned up). If

a trial court were to exclude photos based only upon their disturbing nature,

it “would result in exclusion of all photographs of the homicide victim, and

would defeat one of the essential functions of a criminal trial, inquiry into the

intent of the actor.” Commonwealth v. Walter, 119 A.3d 255, 286

(Pa. 2015) (cleaned up).

Further, even where non-photographic evidence can describe the nature

and extent of a victim’s injuries, our High Court has held that “the availability

of alternate testimonial evidence does not preclude the admission of allegedly

inflammatory evidence.” Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 393

(Pa. 2013) (cleaned up). This is because “the condition of the victim’s body

provides evidence of the assailant’s intent, . . . even where the body’s

condition can be described through testimony from a medical examiner[.]”

Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 138 (Pa. 2008).

A trial court may also take precautionary measures to decrease the

likelihood that an inflammatory photo would prejudice jurors, including issuing

curative instructions, editing the colors to black and white, and prohibiting the

photographs from entering deliberations. See Commonwealth v. Johnson,

42 A.3d 1017, 1034 (Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380,

393-94 (Pa. 2013). Our High Court has also highlighted that “[i]t is a

fundamental precept of our criminal jurisprudence that the Commonwealth is

-7- J-A19038-25

entitled to prove its case by relevant evidence of its choosing.”

Commonwealth v. Hicks, 91 A.3d 47, 55 (Pa. 2014).

Appellee has been charged with, inter alia, first-degree homicide and

abuse of a corpse. To prove that Appellee committed murder in the first

degree, the Commonwealth must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt

that he intentionally killed the victim. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502. “A jury may

infer the specific intent to kill based upon the defendant’s use of a deadly

weapon on a vital part of the victim’s body.” Commonwealth v. Anderson,

323 A.3d 744, 753 (Pa. 2024). To prove that Appellee abused the victim’s

corpse, the Commonwealth must demonstrate that he “treat[ed] a corpse in

such a way that he kn[ew] would outrage ordinary family sensibilities[.]” 18

Pa.C.S. § 5510. The Commonwealth also anticipates that Appellee may claim

self-defense. If so, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “did not

reasonably believe it was necessary to kill in order to protect himself . . .

against death or serious bodily harm, or that [he] used more force than was

necessary to save himself . . . from death[ or] great bodily harm[.]”

Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 332 A.3d 133, 141 (Pa.Super. 2025) (cleaned

Considering the aforementioned principles, we turn to the trial court’s

analysis of the second prong of the inflammatory-photograph test. With

respect to the images that the court excluded or ordered to be cropped at the

shoulders to obscure the victim’s head and neck from view, although it found

-8- J-A19038-25

that the pictures were “relevant and probative[,]” and “certainly provide[d]

evidentiary value to the Commonwealth in proving first-degree homicide and

abuse of a corpse and disproving self-defense[,]” it nevertheless determined

that “the Commonwealth has a multitude of other evidence in addition to the

admitted photographs to establish the elements” of the crimes. See Trial

Court Opinion, 3/25/25, at 10. This evidence, the court explained, included

police reports, interview statements from Appellee, and testimony from PSP

troopers and a pathologist. Id. at 8-9. The court also proposed that the

Commonwealth illustrate the victim’s head wounds through drawings,

diagrams, skeletal models, and collected evidence, such as the landscape

tamper from the crime scene, which was covered in blood and hair. Id. at 9.

The court believed that the admitted photographs, none of which clearly

depicted the injuries to the victim’s head or neck, still “demonstrate the

multitude and severity of the injuries suffered[.]” Id. While acknowledging

that the Commonwealth has an “onerous burden of proof of establishing”

Appellee’s guilt, the trial court did not believe that the excluded or cropped

photographs were of “such necessity and of such essential evidentiary value”

to the Commonwealth to prove its case based upon its ability to describe the

injuries to the victim’s skull and neck through other means. Id. at 9-10. The

court ultimately held that “[c]onsidering the disturbing and gruesome nature

of the photographs displaying the [v]ictim’s smashed head, . . . the

-9- J-A19038-25

photographs would likely detract, confuse, and prejudice the jury in such a

way that [Appellee] would not be given a fair trial.” Id. at 9.

At the outset, the Commonwealth concedes that all imagery in this

matter is inflammatory. See Commonwealth’s brief at 12. However, it argues

that “the complete banning of any and all pictures of the victim’s head, as he

was discovered at the crime scene, amounts to an error of law that is

manifestly unreasonable.” Id. The Commonwealth explains that it “does not

believe this . . . Court should specify precisely what evidence should be

received and how it is presented to the jury, only reverse the complete ban

[of imagery of the damage to the victim’s head] imposed [by the trial court]

with appropriate instructions.” Id. at 10.

The Commonwealth contends that there are several ways that the trial

court could sanitize repugnant images of the victim’s head to balance the

potential prejudice to Appellee with its need to meet its high burden, including

limiting the time that the photos are on display, presenting them in black and

white format, and issuing a curative instruction. Id. at 12-13, 22. It asserts

that a picture of the victim’s head injuries would be relevant to prove first-

degree homicide and rebut a self-defense claim in that the severity of the

wounds would demonstrate a specific intent to kill. Id. at 18. Further, it

emphasizes that the mere fact that non-photographic evidence could describe

the damage does not negate the relevance of the images. Id. at 23.

In sum, the Commonwealth requests the following relief:

- 10 - J-A19038-25

[T]he Commonwealth seeks an order . . . remanding the matter with instructions so that the [trial] court permits the Commonwealth to present evidence that show[s] specific intent and contradicts any potential defense arguments of self-defense. The photos of the head wound are the best and clearest evidence of [Appellee’s] intent and go to the very heart of the matter to be decided in the pending jury trial. Removing all photographic evidence of the head wounds[,] without caveat or qualification, represents a clear abuse of discretion.

....

[T]he [trial] court’s order should be . . . remanded with the instruction that the Commonwealth be permitted to admit the photos in question in some form.

Id. at 24-25.

Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to

adequately consider the Commonwealth’s right to utilize all potentially

relevant evidence to prosecute Appellee. The court misapplied the law in

determining that images of the victim’s head wounds were inadmissible based

upon: (1) the ability to describe the injuries through other means; and (2)

their appalling nature. Our law is clear that the fact that injuries could

potentially be described through other evidentiary means is not a basis for

exclusion. See, e.g., Ballard, 80 A.3d at 393. Further, the brutality of an

image cannot be the sole basis for its exclusion because it would render any

and all photographic evidence of a homicide inadmissible. See, e.g.,

Watkins, 108 A.3d at 724.

Although Appellee admitted to shooting and beating the victim, the

Commonwealth must still prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Appellee

- 11 - J-A19038-25

had the specific intent to kill him. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502. The trial court only

admitted photos of the gunshot wounds and damage to the victim’s torso,

back, buttocks, and arms. What is missing, however, is imagery of the

inflicted injuries to the victim’s face and neck. Even considering Appellee’s

confession, it remains unclear when the victim died, or which wounds killed

him. This is the precise reason the Commonwealth would introduce

photographic evidence of the mutilation to the victim’s skull and neck to allow

witnesses, such as a pathologist, to explain which injuries occurred pre- or

post-mortem and caused his death. The court failed to address whether

omitting all photos of the victim’s face and neck would substantially handicap

the prosecution in this manner. Rather, the court insisted that the

Commonwealth demonstrate the victim’s head wounds through other means,

which goes against the well-settled precept that the Commonwealth has the

right to prosecute its case with relevant evidence as it deems fit. See Hicks,

91 A.3d at 55.

In fact, caselaw demonstrates that ghastly images of a homicide victim’s

wounds have been found to be: (1) necessary for witnesses to adequately

describe the nature and extent of damage to a victim’s body, (2) highly

probative of a specific intent to kill, and (3) relevant to disprove defenses.

See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Haney, 131 A.3d 24, 38 (Pa. 2015) (holding

that disturbing images of a four-year-old child’s deadly injuries were

necessary to depict the severity of the defendant’s attack, rebut his assertion

- 12 - J-A19038-25

that the child’s bruises “were caused by accidental falls,” and “to prove that

[the defendant] beat [the child] with the necessary mens rea” for first-degree

homicide); Commonwealth v. Funk, 29 A.3d 28, 33 (Pa.Super. 2011)

(stating that “[s]pecific intent to kill can be established through circumstantial

evidence such as the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim’s

body[,]” and “[m]any assertions that Funk made about how the murder

occurred were disproved by expert testimony using the pictures” based upon

“the violence depicted”).

Moreover, the court did not discuss whether altering a photograph of

the victim’s face and neck without obscuring it could decrease the likelihood

of inflaming the jury’s emotions. The court admitted one photograph that

included the victim’s head, P17, which was edited to black and white. That

image, however, mainly depicts the victim’s back while he was lying face down

on the autopsy table, and his head is turned away from the camera. Although

his skull appears to be disformed, the injuries to his face and neck are

substantially shielded from the jury. The court neglected to consider whether

an admitted photograph such as P20, which portrayed the victim’s head and

neck wounds face up on the autopsy table, could be shown to the jury with

the same sanitizing efforts as P17. It failed to explain why it ordered P20 to

be cropped at the shoulders, and neglected to consider whether editing it to

grayscale to mute some of the gore would adequately balance the

Commonwealth’s right to utilize all relevant evidence to meet its onerous

- 13 - J-A19038-25

burden without prejudicing Appellee. See Antidormi, 84 A.3d at 750.

Furthermore, the court failed to weigh the prejudicial impact of such photos if

it were to issue cautionary instructions, limit the time the jurors may view the

photographs, or refuse to provide images during deliberations. See Johnson,

42 A.3d at 1034.

The violence of the acts allegedly committed by Appellee does not

render photographic evidence of such actions inadmissible. See Walter, 119

A.3d at 286; Lyons, 79 A.3d at 1069. To overly sanitize the evidence in this

case by prohibiting the jury from analyzing the traumatic wounds to the

victim’s face and neck would deprive the Commonwealth of highly probative

evidence and potentially reward Appellee for inflicting such brutal injuries.

See Watkins, 108 A.3d at 724.

Overall, the trial court abused its discretion when it misapplied the law

in conducting the two-part balancing test outlined above. Specifically, it did

not adequately weigh the Commonwealth’s right to prosecute its case to the

fullest extent, utilizing all relevant evidence, against the potential prejudice

against Appellee. Accordingly, we vacate the order insofar as the court

excluded all imagery of the victim’s head and neck injuries, and remand with

instructions for the trial court to admit some photograph evidence illustrating

the wounds to the victim’s head and neck. Since the Commonwealth was

vague in its request for relief and did not demand that a certain image be

admitted, we will defer to the court and the parties on that matter. However,

- 14 - J-A19038-25

we note that P20 is an example of a photo that clearly depicts the damage to

the victim’s head and neck, and could be admitted with special consideration

of censoring efforts, such as editing to grayscale, issuing jury instructions, and

prohibiting the image from entering into deliberations.

Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction

relinquished.

DATE: 09/05/2025

- 15 -