Opinion ID: 4528170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: Crime Scene and Autopsy Photographs. Britt claims generally that the district court erred when, over his objection, it admitted numerous crime scene and autopsy - 372 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BRITT Cite as 305 Neb. 363 photographs generally showing the bodies of the murder victims. He specifically claims that such admission violated Neb. Evid. R. 403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016). Rule 403 provides, “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” We find no merit to this assignment of error. Britt identifies 13 of the admitted photographs and argues their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial nature. He focuses on their gruesome nature and also contends that many of the photographs are duplicative. [4] We have often observed that gruesome crimes produce gruesome photographs. State v. Stelly, 304 Neb. 33, 932 N.W.2d 857 (2019). However, if the State lays proper foundation, photographs that illustrate or make clear a controverted issue in a homicide case are admissible, even if gruesome. Id.; State v. Dubray, supra. With respect to homicide cases, other authorities have noted, and we agree, that murder is seldom pretty, and pictures, testimony and physical evidence in such a case are always unpleasant; and . . . many attorneys tend to underestimate the stability of the jury. A juror is not some kind of a dithering nincompoop, brought in from never-never land and exposed to the harsh realities of life for the first time in the jury box. There is nothing magic about being a member of the bench or bar which makes these individuals capable of dispassionately evaluating gruesome testimony which, it is often contended, will throw jurors into a paroxysm of hysteria. Jurors are our peers, often as well educated, as well balanced, as stable, as experienced in the realities of life as the holders of law degrees. The average juror is well able to stomach the unpleasantness of exposure to the facts of a murder without being unduly influenced. - 373 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BRITT Cite as 305 Neb. 363 People v. Long, 38 Cal. App. 3d 680, 689, 113 Cal. Rptr. 530, 536-37 (1974), disapproved on other grounds, People v. Ray, 14 Cal. 3d 20, 533 P.2d 1017 (1975). [5] The State is allowed to present a coherent picture of the facts of the crimes charged, and it may generally choose its evidence in so doing. State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208, 854 N.W.2d 584 (2014). In a homicide prosecution, a court may admit into evidence photographs of a victim for identification, to show the condition of the body or the nature and extent of wounds and injuries to it, and to establish malice or intent. Id. With respect to the crime scene and autopsy photographs challenged on appeal, the State has proffered a variety of purposes for their probative value. We agree with the State that the photographs show the positions of the bodies and wounds from several positions and were for the purpose of suggesting multiple shooters were present, corroborating testimony from Francisco Avalos that he heard footsteps of more than one shooter and countering Britt’s suggestion that he was not involved in the shootings. The photographs also show the victims’ wounds and spent shell casings. The State was able to use these photographs to connect the crimes to a .22-caliber revolver owned by Britt and featured in the alleged coverup of the crimes. The autopsy photographs document the manner and cause of the victims’ deaths. [6] Although several photographs depict similar scenes from different angles as compared to other photographs in evidence, the general rule is that when a court admits photographs for a proper purpose, additional photographs of the same type are not unfairly prejudicial. State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 684, 884 N.W.2d 429 (2016). Rule 403 does not require the State to have a separate purpose for every photograph, and it requires a court to prohibit cumulative evidence only if it “substantially” outweighs the probative value of the evidence. State v. Dubray, supra. We determine that the district court admitted the photographs for a proper purpose and did not abuse its discretion - 374 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BRITT Cite as 305 Neb. 363 when it concluded that the photographs of the crime scene and autopsy were not unfairly prejudicial. Right to Confront Davis. [7] Britt, acting pro se, also claims that the district “court violated the confrontation clause when it did not call . . . Davis to the stand.” Pro se supplemental brief for appellant at 12. The right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him or her is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 11, of the Nebraska Constitution. Britt contends, restated, that his right of confrontation was violated because Davis, the alleged coconspirator, was not called to testify about who he was with during the timeframe during which the murders were committed. Britt contends that this testimony was necessary to protect his rights because the State’s evidence was limited to individuals who did not claim to have directly witnessed the murders. Britt did not present a confrontation claim to the district court. We note that regardless of whether this claim was preserved, Britt has directed us to no authority to the effect that the district court had an independent obligation to call a witness or require the State to call a witness. Davis did not testify at trial, and Britt had the opportunity to cross-examine the several witnesses against him at trial. We have not been directed to, and we are unaware of, a separate proposition of law that would apply in this case to support Britt’s contention that the trial court should have independently required Davis to testify. And to the contrary, we have previously concluded that hearsay testimony from Davis was not admissible. State v. Britt, 293 Neb. 381, 881 N.W.2d 818 (2016). As noted above, a major component of Britt’s argument on appeal is that the evidence against him was merely circumstantial and that this presented a confrontation issue without Davis’ testimony. To the extent that Britt contends the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions or, in the absence of Davis’ testimony, his Sixth Amendment rights were violated, we disagree. Testimony collectively showed that at least two - 375 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BRITT Cite as 305 Neb. 363 people were inside Avalos’ home at the time of the murders; Britt was the only person with Davis immediately before and after the murders; Britt possessed a .22-caliber revolver, which was consistent with one of the two types of firearms used to commit the murders; and Britt was seen performing acts of concealment, including burning a pair of gloves he was wearing after the murders. The evidence presented by the State from other witnesses’ personal observations, without direct testimony from Davis, was that Britt was Davis’ accomplice. This assignment of error is without merit.