Opinion ID: 6335851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Photographs and crime scene video

Text: Hall next argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs and a video of the crime scene. During the trial, the jury viewed 19 photographs of the crime scene and a ten-minute video of the scene. Hall argues that many of the photographs were duplicative and unnecessary and that because the photographs were admitted, the video was duplicative and 28 unnecessary. He further argues that because they were duplicative, their probative value was low and was outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. We review the trial court’s admission of photographic evidence for abuse of discretion. Holbrook v. Commonwealth, 525 S.W.3d 73, 85 (Ky. 2017) (citing Meskimen v. Commonwealth, 435 S.W.3d 526, 534 (Ky. 2013)). “The general rule is that a photograph, otherwise admissible, does not become inadmissible simply because it is gruesome and the crime is heinous.” Funk v. Commonwealth, 842 S.W.2d 476, 479 (Ky. 1992) (citation omitted). In making admissibility decisions regarding graphic videos or photos, the trial court must undertake a KRE 403 analysis. Hall I, 468 S.W.3d at 823. KRE 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” This Court has further explained, “[w]hen ruling on the admissibility of a gruesome photograph, the trial court should consider whether evidentiary alternatives would sufficiently prove the fact at issue without a comparable risk of prejudice. However, the evidence must be highly inflammatory and prejudicial to compel a party to employ evidentiary alternatives.” Ratliff v. Commonwealth, 194 S.W.3d 258, 271 (Ky. 2006) (internal citations omitted). Finally, “the probative worth of each additional gruesome photograph [will] be incrementally discounted as the facts to be proven become ever more certain[,]” and the “admission of additional photos 29 will also correspondingly increase the danger of undue prejudice.” Hall I, 468 S.W.3d at 826. Hall complains of some non-gruesome photos as well as some photos that he describes as gruesome. We begin our analysis with the non-gruesome photos: Commonwealth’s Exhibits 6, 8, 9, 17, and 18. Exhibit 6 shows the top of the stairs in the Hall residence. These are the stairs Hall ascended in order to get to his bedroom and commence shooting Lisa and Alan. Hall argues that this photograph is cumulative of Exhibit 5 (to which Hall did not object), which also shows the stairs in the Hall residence. Exhibit 5 shows the stairs from the bottom, and only three stairs are visible, as the stairs then turn to the left. These two photos are not duplicative, as they show different portions of the staircase, each which cannot be seen in the other photo. Although Exhibit 6 does not have a high probative value, it is still relevant because it provides a visual depiction of the scene. The probative value may be slightly decreased by the admission of the crime scene video, but it is not completely diminished. Further, Exhibit 6 causes virtually no prejudice at all, and therefore its probative value is not “substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice . . . or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” KRE 403. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting Commonwealth’s Exhibit 6. Commonwealth’s Exhibits 8 and 9 are of the Halls’ bedroom from which Hall shot Lisa and Alan. Hall argues that these photographs are cumulative of Exhibit 7 (to which Hall did not object) which also shows the Halls’ bedroom. Exhibit 7 shows the room from the doorway providing a wider view of the room, 30 including most of the bed, the window from which Hall shot, and the rifle Hall used. Exhibit 8 is a closer photo that shows the side of the bed where Hall was positioned when he shot and a portion of the window. Finally, Exhibit 9 shows the very top part of the bed and the entire window. Although the probative value of Exhibits 8 and 9 is limited, that value is balanced against the almost non-existent risk of undue prejudice. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting Exhibits 8 and 9. Hall also argues that Commonwealth’s Exhibits 17 and 18 are cumulative of Exhibit 19. Commonwealth’s Exhibit 17 is a photograph taken from the Tacketts’ side yard, described above.3 The Tackett residence, including the front porch, is on the right side of the photograph, and the Hall residence, including the window from which Hall shot, is on the left side of the photograph. Exhibit 18 is a photograph of the Tacketts’ storm door with a larger bullet hole centered in the photograph and a smaller bullet hole barely visible to the left of the larger hole. Exhibit 19 (to which Hall did not object) also shows the storm door. Exhibit 19, however, is a closer view of the storm door, focused on the two bullet holes. The smaller hole is much more easily seen in Exhibit 19 than in Exhibit 18. Exhibit 19 shows almost none of the front porch and does not show the Hall residence at all. Exhibit 17 is very 3 “Exhibit 17 is a photograph taken from the Tacketts’ side yard. It is taken so that the photographer is looking almost directly across and through the Tacketts’ front porch. The Tacketts’ open storm door is in the center of the photograph, slightly to the right of the midline. The window from which Hall shot is in the background on the left side of the photograph, approximately one-third of the way in from the left edge of the photo. The window is angled just slightly towards the Tackett residence.” 31 different than Exhibit 19, and therefore is in no way cumulative of that photograph. It is also highly probative. It provides important context as to the spatial relationship between the two residences, as well as the spatial relationship of the Halls’ bedroom window to the front porch and storm door of the Tackett residence. Further, although Exhibits 18 and 19 both show the Tacketts’ storm door, they do so from different angles. Exhibit 18 provides a view that is from slightly farther away, showing where the bullet holes were in relation to the rest of the storm door. Exhibit 19 shows the smaller bullet hole more clearly. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting Commonwealth’s Exhibits 17 and 18, as their probative value was not “substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice . . . or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” KRE 403. Hall next argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs that he describes as gruesome: Commonwealth’s Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. We described each of these photographs in Hall I: Exhibit 12[] is a view of the Tacketts’ front yard and porch from a distance. It shows Lisa’s body, lying face up, at the foot of the porch steps. It also shows Alan’s body, partially hidden from view, lying on the porch. To the left of Alan’s body, an open storm door, with shattered glass, is partially obscured by a porch column. No blood, soft tissue, or other specific evidence of injury is discernable. Exhibit 13 is a photo of the same scene but taken approximately 20 to 30 feet closer to the house. 468 S.W.3d at 820 (footnote omitted). Exhibit 13 is taken looking slightly downward, focusing on Lisa’s body. Exhibit 14 “is taken from about the same position as Exhibit 13, but is directed straight ahead and focused on the porch and open front door of the house. Lisa’s body is visible from the neck down and 32 the lower portion of Alan’s body can be seen.” Id.4 Although we do not necessarily agree with Hall’s categorization of these photos as gruesome, that point is not determinative of our analysis. Hall’s primary argument is that these photographs are cumulative of each other and the crime scene video, and that only one of them should have been admitted at trial. Although all three photographs are taken of the same portion of the crime scene, they are taken from different angles and at different distances. Further, in part because they are not truly gruesome, the accompanying risk of undue prejudice is low. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting Commonwealth’s Exhibits 12, 13, and 14, as their probative value was not “substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice . . . or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” KRE 403. Finally, Hall argues that the trial court erred in admitting the ten-minute crime scene video as it was both cumulative and prejudicial. Hall asserts that because the photographs were admitted at trial, the video was unnecessary. The video begins at the Hall residence, goes into the Halls’ bedroom, and shows the window from which Hall shot and the rifle that Hall used. The videographer then proceeds down the Halls’ steps, out of the Hall residence, and to the Tackett residence. The video shows the bodies of both victims and where pieces of Alan’s tissue had landed inside of the Tackett residence. Then, the video shows the Tacketts’ storm door, the porch swing, and the Halls’ bedroom 4 The described photograph was Exhibit 16 at the first trial. In Hall’s retrial, it was renumbered to Exhibit 14. 33 window (viewed from the Tacketts’ porch). The video attempts to show the angle from which the shots must have been fired to go from the window and through both the frame of the porch swing and the storm door. “[A] videotape of a crime scene, including the position of the victim’s body and the location and nature of the victim’s injuries, is just as admissible as a photograph, assuming a proper foundation is laid. This is true, even though the scene depicted may be gruesome.” Young v. Commonwealth, 50 S.W.3d 148, 169 (Ky. 2001) (internal citations omitted). We have acknowledged that sometimes “video evidence provide[s] a more accurate account of the crime scene” than can be conveyed through testimony and photographs. Baumia v. Commonwealth, 402 S.W.3d 530, 542 (Ky. 2013). In this case, the video did just that. The video provided the jury a perspective and context that it would not have otherwise had. Because of this, it was highly probative. Although the video carried with it a risk of prejudice, “[t]he primary danger from such evidence is ‘emotionalism’—i.e., that the graphic photos will ‘arouse biases and sympathies, provoke animosities, and inflame passions that obstruct careful thought and judgment.’” Hall I, 468 S.W.3d 814, 824–25 (quoting ROBERT G. LAWSON, KENTUCKY EVIDENCE LAW HANDBOOK § 2.15[3][b] at 92 (5th ed. 2013)) (footnote omitted). The risk of emotionalism was not high, and any risk that did exist did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the crime scene video. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting the video. 34