Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): against its probative value.” Mora, 1997-NMSC-060, ¶55, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789. We review the admission of photographs under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Pettigrew, 116 N.M. 135, 139, 860 P.2d 777, 781 (Ct.App.1993). In this case, the photographs of Victim after death were used to show the nature of the injury, to explain the basis of the forensic pathologist’s opinion, and to illustrate the forensic pathologist’s testimony. It is well established that photographs may properly be admitted for such purposes, even if they are gruesome. See, e.g., Mora, 1997-NMSC-060, ¶¶ 54-55, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789 (upholding the admission of photos of a child homicide victim on grounds they were illustrative); State v. Perea, 2001-NMCA-002, ¶ 22, 130 N.M. 46, 16 P.3d 1105 (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part and vacated in paH, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion (B) holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime (C) holding that the admission of a photograph of a homicide victim for the purpose of identification was within the discretion of the district court and determining that a family photo excluded by the court as prejudicial that was inadvertently seen by two jurors was harmless error (D) holding that a potentially inflammatory photograph of a victims face was relevant and that its admission was well within the discretion of the district court (E) holding that the exclusion of marginally relevant evidence was within the courts discretion
Output (English): holding that the exclusion of marginally relevant evidence was within the courts discretion