Opinion ID: 206447
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Photograph of L.R.F.

Text: White Calf argues the district court abused its discretion in admitting Exhibit 3, a photograph of L.R.F. Exhibit 3 is a school picture taken in September 2008, approximately three months after White Calf's party and ten months before trial. L.R.F. was still 13 years old when the picture was taken. At trial, White Calf objected to the admission of Exhibit 3 and now supports the objection on the basis of relevance and foundation because there was no testimony to establish whether Exhibit 3 accurately portrayed [L.R.F.'s] appearance in June, since it was taken in a completely different social setting several months later in September. White Calf argues Exhibit 3 misl[ed] the jury and encourag[ed] mere speculation about [L.R.F.]'s appearance at the critical time, and, by means of purportedly impermissible closing argument on the part of the prosecutor, shift[ed] the burden of proof to [White Calf] to negate the relevance of the exhibit. White Calf opines the admission of Exhibit 3 violated the authentication requirement of Fed.R.Evid. 901(a), which predicates admission on evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Reversal is not required. The photograph plainly was relevant to the jury's determination of L.R.F.'s appearance on June 30, 2008. Even if we accept the proposition that Exhibit 3 was not an accurate portrayal of L.R.F.'s appearance at the time of the party, White Calf cannot show prejudice. White Calf was free to argue to the jury that Exhibit 3 did not represent L.R.F.'s appearance on the night in question on account of its vintage and more formal setting. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(a). L.R.F.'s appearance in the photo and White Calf's argument go to the weight of persuasion for the photo evidence, which is for the jury's consideration. It is difficult to imagine how the admission of a photograph such as Exhibit 3, taken after the crime, could harm a defendant. As the district court observed, if anything, [Exhibit 3] would over-represent [L.R.F.'s] age rather than under-represent her age.