Opinion ID: 2306140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Photographs of Wellman

Text: Appellants argue that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting two photographs of Wellman because they were inflammatory and because their prejudicial effect substantially outweighed their probative value. One photograph showed Wellman from the waist up, standing in front of a barbershop, approximately four days before the assault (the life photograph). The other photograph was a blurry photograph of Wellman depicting the medical treatment that Wellman received after being admitted to the hospital, but not showing any visible injuries Wellman sustained (the hospital photograph). As a general rule, pictures of the decedent in a murder case are admissible, in the discretion of the trial court, so long as they have some probative value and are not intended solely to inflame the jury. Russell, supra, 586 A.2d at 700. Even where photographs are cumulative in light of the testimonial evidence, they may still be admissible so long as their probative value substantially outweighs any prejudice from their use. See id.; ( William A. ) Johnson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1087, 1098-99 (D.C.1996). Appellants argue that the photographs had no probative value and that, even if there were some probative value to them, the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury substantially outweighed that value. The hospital photograph showing Wellman's medical treatment was relevant, however, to proving the severity of Wellman's injuries, which, in turn, was relevant to proving the requisite mens rea of malice. Edwards v. United States, 767 A.2d 241, 253 (D.C.2001) (holding that the government was entitled to use the pictures [of an 18-month old's burned body] to establish the elements of second-degree murder ( i.e., malice)). Moreover, appellants conceded that the photograph was blurry and that it did not depict any visible injuries that Wellman sustained. As such, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the hospital photograph. As to the life photograph, other than so-stating, appellants provide no explanation as to why or how a picture of Wellman from the waist-up, standing in front of a barbershop, was highly prejudicial and designed to inflame the jurors. Thus, we decline to address this argument. See e.g., McFarland v. George Washington Univ., 935 A.2d 337, 351 (D.C.2007) (Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.); Bardoff v. United States, 628 A.2d 86, 90 n. 8 (D.C.1993) (questions raised but not argued in briefing are treated as abandoned). [3]