Opinion ID: 1133414
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of photographs and slides of baby Amanda's injuries

Text: Over a defense objection on the ground that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative (Evid.Code,  352), the trial court admitted two photographs taken during the autopsy of baby Amanda that depicted her anal area and buttocks. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting these two photographs, asserting that they were cumulative of two others taken before Amanda's death, and that they gave an exaggerated and misleading impression because bruises visible on one postmortem photograph appeared darker than those shown on one taken before Amanda's death. We discern no abuse of discretion. As testified by Dr. Eva Hauser, the Deputy Medical Examiner, one of the autopsy photographs showed Amanda's anal opening to be wide open and stretched out rather than puckered. This, Dr. Hauser said, differed from a normal anus, which would have a constricted, puckered appearance. The second autopsy photograph depicted bruising on Amanda's buttocks. These two photographs taken during the autopsy did not duplicate the two taken before Amanda died, one depicting Amanda's vagina and the other taken with Amanda on her side and showing the top of one buttock. Although in the coroner's photograph the bruises on Amanda's buttocks appear somewhat darker than the bruises shown on the photograph taken while Amanda was still alive, the coroner's photograph also shows considerably more detail than the one taken before she died. The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in admitting the two coroner's photographs. ( People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1170, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 385, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708.) Likewise, the trial court acted well within its discretion in allowing the jury to view three slides depicting the injuries to Amanda's anus and vagina. We agree with the trial court's observation that the slides, projected larger than life, were somewhat clinical but extremely illustrative in aid of the testimony by Kaiser Sunset Hospital doctor Joel Ament who described Amanda's injuries. Finally, defendant argues that admission of the two coroner's photographs and the three slides violated the federal Constitution's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because defendant did not object to admission of the evidence on these grounds at trial, he has not preserved these claims. ( People v. Ramos, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1170, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950.)