Opinion ID: 1433861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Police and autopsy photographs

Text: Over defense objection, the trial court admitted into evidence three photographs of Mincy's body, which Criminalist Gregory Laskowski utilized to illustrate his testimony about blood spatters and drips found at the crime scene. [4] Defendant renews his contention these photos were cumulative and more prejudicial than probative due to their gruesome nature. (Evid.Code, ง 352.) The admission of photographs of a murder victim lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, exercise of which will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse, i.e., that their probative value is clearly outweighed by their prejudicial effect. ( People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 514, 273 Cal.Rptr. 537, 797 P.2d 561.) In overruling the objection, the court here characterized the evidence as highly relevant because Laskowski used all three pictures to explain how he concluded from the blood spatters and drips that Mincy had been in motion when defendant fired some of the shots. In the court's view, it certainly goes to the issue of intent and premeditation and planning.... These conclusions reflect a proper exercise of the court's discretion. Since identity was not at issue, defendant's state of mind was critical to the charge of first degree murder (see People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 18-19, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 939 P.2d 748), and firing at a fleeing victim reasonably reflects an intention to kill. (Cf. People v. Ramos, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1170, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950.) Moreover, even though the pictures served to corroborate a testimonial witness, they were not cumulative since the photographic evidence could assist the jury in understanding and evaluating that testimony. ( People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 441, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610; see also People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 133, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) Indeed, Laskowski's testimony may have made little sense without appropriate illustration. We have examined the exhibits and also do not find them unduly gruesome. For the first time on appeal, defendant contends the court's ruling violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. Because he failed to object on these grounds at trial, the claim is not preserved. ( People v. Ramos, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1170, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892,938 P.2d 950.)