he had taped Ms. Howell’s hands together. The photograph in question illustrated and corroborated both the testimony of Embry and the statements made by Callahan. We have reviewed this photograph and, while it is not pleasant, it is not gruesome or ghastly. In any event, “[t]he fact that a photograph is gruesome and ghastly is no reason for excluding it, if relevant, even if the photograph may tend to inflame the jury.” Walker v. State, 416 So.2d 1083, 1090 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). See also Magwood, 494 So.2d at 141, and cases cited therein. Having demonstrated the relevancy of this photograph, we find no error in its admission. See Callahan, 471 So.2d at 456. Cf. Gore v. State, 475 So.2d 1205 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, Gore v. Florida, 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S.Ct. 1240, 89 L.Ed.2d 348 (1986) (<HOLDING>). IV Callahan’s motion for change of venue was
holding that a photograph of the hands of the murder victim tied behind her back was properly admitted because it showed the considerable pain inflicted upon the victim by the defendant holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding photograph showing victim with his family photograph fell within the prosecutors latitude in showing victim and was not unduly prejudicial holding autopsy photograph of victim was admissible even if defendant stipulated identity of victim holding that the injury was not inflicted by the defendant when it may have resulted from the actions ie the headbutt of the victim himself