
    Billy Joe MAYNARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 83-969.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Sept. 13, 1984.
    James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and W. Brian Bayly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330 (Fla.1984) and Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908 (Fla.1983). In regard to the autopsy photographs admitted in the instant case, we have reviewed them pursuant to Leach v. State, 132 So.2d 329 (Fla.1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 1005, 82 S.Ct. 636, 7 L.Ed.2d 543 (1962), and section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1983), and have determined that their admission into evidence, if error, was harmless in the instant case.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

COWART, J., concurs specially with opinion.

COWART, Judge,

concurring specially:

Bite-mark evidence, when relevant to prove identification, state of mind, the act itself or any other material fact, is admissible in evidence. Questions as to the weight to be given to such evidence, including the degree of its probative force and effect and the inferences to be drawn from it, are for the trier of fact. See Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330 (Fla.1984); Annot., “Admissibility of Evidence Tending to Identify Accused By His Own Bite Marks,” 77 A.L.R.3d 1122 (1977).

Autopsy photographs, if relevant, are admissible in evidence, although gruesome. Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908 (Fla.1983).  