Jeffrey Taylor Madden v. State of Florida

FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-1067
_____________________________
J EFFREY TAYLOR M ADDEN ,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA ,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Levy County.
William E. Davis, Judge.
May 27, 2026
P ER C URIAM.
Jeffrey Madden appeals from his final judgment and sentence
for seven crimes. 	He raises several issues. 	We write to address
one, and we affirm.
Some of the charged crimes arose from Madden crashing his
vehicle into the victim’s vehicle. During trial, the State presented
numerous photos of the crash scene and the vehicles. Some of the
photos showed that Madden’s vehicle had a Confederate flag tag
affixed to the front. 	Madden objected to these photos’ admission,
arguing that their prejudicial effect substantially outweighed their
probative 	value. 	The 	State 	responded 	that 	the 	photos 	were

2
relevant to show damage and paint transfer from the collision,
which would illustrate both where and how hard Madden’s vehicle
hit the victim’s vehicle. Madden asserted that the Confederate flag
tag could be redacted, but the State pointed out that some of the
relevant damage and paint was on the tag.
The record shows that the trial court reviewed each photo,
admitted some, and removed duplicative ones. 	The State did not
belabor the photos when sharing them with the jury and excluded
ones that showed the tag from the exhibit stack that the jury would
have for deliberations. 	One photo was briefly shown during the
State’s closing argument. On appeal, Madden asserts that the trial
court erred by admitting the photos and that he was unfairly
prejudiced.
“Generally, the admission of photographic evidence is within
the trial judge’s discretion and . . . will not be disturbed on appeal
unless there is a clear showing of abuse.” 	Pangburn v. State, 661
So. 2d 1182, 1187 	(Fla. 1995). 	Even so, “trial judges should
carefully scrutinize photographs for prejudicial effect, especially
when less graphic photographs are available to illustrate the same
point.” 	Id. 	In Pangburn, the supreme court concluded that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prejudicial
photos, highlighting that the trial court “specifically viewed the
pictures after defense counsel objected” and that the photos were
relevant. Id. at 1188. Indeed, as we have noted before, the test for
admissibility of photos is “relevancy rather than necessity.” Harris
v. State, 397 So. 3d 833, 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (quoting Pope v.
State, 679 So. 2d 710, 713 (Fla. 1996)).
Here, the record shows that the photos were relevant and that
photos without the tag could not have illustrated the same point.
The record also shows that the trial court carefully reviewed each
photo and checked for duplicative ones. Finally, the record shows
that the State did not dwell on any photo that showed the tag.
Given these facts, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting the photos. 	See also Zack v. State, 911
So. 2d 1190, 1210 (Fla. 2005) (finding no merit in the claim that
the Confederate flag visible on the defendant’s hat rendered the
hat inadmissible, as the hat was relevant).

3
A FFIRMED.
R OWE , R AY , and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Steven G. Frisco of Rush & Frisco Law, Gainesville, for Appellant.
James 	Uthmeier, 	Attorney 	General, 	and 	Steven 	E. 	Woods,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.