Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inflammatory use of gruesome photographs.

Text: Appellant's objections to admission of various photographs of the murder victims depicting Martin's face while wrapped in clear plastic and after the plastic had been removed, and of the body of Walsh with and after removal of the clear plastic that covered her upper torso, were overruled during the guilt phase. When first presented to the court for a preliminary ruling, the court observed that none of the photos other than exhibit Nos. 60 and 61 were particularly gruesome and stated that they were not so inflammatory that a jury would be incensed or bothered. As to the photographs identified as exhibit Nos. 60 and 61, the court said that the People would have to offer pretty hard evidence and arguments before he would admit them but on a scale of one to ten of other homicides ... they're not of the upper scale either, but they do portray more graphically some of the details. The prosecutor explained that exhibit No. 60 showed the manner in which the victim was trussed, while exhibit No. 61 showed the actual mechanism of death  the intact FLEX-CUF  all of which was probative of malice and premeditation. The court indicated that the probative value would have to be high before he would exercise his discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to admit them. Exhibit Nos. 60 and 61 were subsequently admitted. At the time admission of exhibits was discussed, defense counsel stated that he had some concerns about exhibit No. 60, the photograph of the bound body of Dorothy Walsh. The court admitted that exhibit, stating twice that it was not particularly gory. The objection to exhibit No. 61, which depicted the ligature, was that it was duplicative of two other photos. The court ruled that exhibit No. 61 and one of the other photos would be admitted. Appellant claims that the admission and use of the photographs, which apparently were shown to the jury again by the prosecutor during closing argument, violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He argues that they had insufficient relevance to any issue, were cumulative of expert testimony regarding the cause of death, and were unduly gruesome. ( People v. Anderson, supra ] 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1137, 240 Cal.Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306.) In addition, he claims, the prosecutor used the photographs to arouse revulsion and anger rather than to elicit from the jury a reasoned moral response. To the extent that this latter claim is one of prosecutorial misconduct it was waived as he failed to object. We deem the objections made were broad enough to encompass his constitutional claims and therefore need not address his claim that if the objections were inadequate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We have examined the photographs and find no error in the admission and use of these exhibits. They are not gruesome and accurately depict aspects of the method of killing that were relevant to issues in the case. Exhibit No. 60 confirms that the victim's hands were no longer bound behind her body with FLEX-CUFs when found, but were tied in front with string or rope. Thus, the scratches on her neck could have been caused by her fingernails as she attempted to loosen the ligature in order to breathe. Exhibit No. 61 depicts, in a way oral testimony could not, how tight the FLEX-CUF was pulled, compressing the victim's neck to an extraordinary degree. Photographs corroborating testimonial evidence are admissible as they assist the jury in understanding and evaluating the testimony. ( People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1170, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950.) The evidence was, as the prosecutor argued, relevant to intent, premeditation and malice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these exhibits. ( People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 754-755, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2.) Display of the photographs during penalty phase argument was not misconduct. The jury is permitted to consider any evidence regarding the circumstances of the crime admitted at the guilt phase. (§ 190.2, subd. (a).) The photographs were relevant to the appropriateness of the death penalty. ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 959-960, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171.) Thus, contrary to appellant's claim, trial counsel's failure to object to that use of the photographs during the penalty phase does not reflect incompetence.