The accuracy of the photographs in both respects was undisputed, and consequently, they should have been admitted into evidence. Green v. City County of Denver, 111 Colo. 390, 142 P.2d 277 (1943); Reed v. Davidson Dairy Co., 97 Colo. 462, 50 P.2d 532 (1935); 2 Scott, Photographic Evidence § 1101 (2d ed. 1969). See also Pasero v. Tacoma Transit Co., 35 Wash.2d 97, 211 P.2d 160 (1949), wherein the testimony of an expert based on metal smearing was specifically approved.

Nevertheless, we do not consider the trial court's ruling allowing the prosecution to qualify the confession in anticipation of such an issue as erroneous. The photographs merely illustrated the scene which had been described by the witnesses who testified concerning the confession, and qualified photographs are always admissible to express what has been described by words. See Green v. City and County of Denver, 111 Colo. 390, 142 P.2d 277, citing Wigmore, Evidence, sec. 792 (3d ed. 1940). Cf. Potts v. People, 114 Colo. 253, 158 P.2d 739.

Application of this philosophy to ordinance violations has produced an anomaly: the trial is civil in nature, but the effects and consequences are criminal in fact. Green v. Denver, 111 Colo. 390, 142 P.2d 277; Douglas v. Kansas City, 147 Mo. 428, 48 S.W. 851. Label the judicial process as one will, no resort to subtlety can refute the fact that the power to imprison is as criminal sanction. To view otherwise is self-delusion.