Opinion ID: 2595540
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Videotape of victim

Text: Defendant claims the court committed error in admitting a videotape of Alicia Allen taken two weeks before her murder. He renews the objection made at trial pursuant to Evidence Code section 352 that the tape was more prejudicial than probative. Courts should be cautious in the guilt phase about admitting photographs of murder victims while alive, given the risk that the photograph will merely generate sympathy for the victims. ( People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 677, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640.) But the possibility that a photograph will generate sympathy does not compel its exclusion if it is otherwise relevant. ( People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1230, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210.) The decision to admit victim photographs falls within the trial court's discretion, and an appellate court will not disturb its ruling unless the prejudicial effect of the photographs clearly outweighs their probative value. ( People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 495, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182.) Allen's mother testified that Allen regularly wore numerous pieces of jewelry that she never took off, including a diamond engagement ring and a high school class ring. The prosecution played a silent, 40-second-long portion of a videotape taken of Allen at a child's birthday party two weeks before her death. Her mother identified the engagement ring and several necklaces shown on the videotape, and testified that with the exception of a small pinky ring, none of the jewelry shown in the videotape or any other pieces of Allen's jewelry were ever recovered. Defendant claims the videotape was more prejudicial than probative, and the videotape showing a children's birthday party was emotionally charged and served to highlight Allen's innocent nature. We disagree. The videotape was relevant to proving Allen owned and wore jewelry that allegedly was stolen during the course of the murders, and was not made inadmissible, as defendant argues, because the prosecution could have established the same relevant fact by other means. ( People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 495-496, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 66 P.3d 1182.) We have reviewed the videotape and agree with the trial court that although it was taken during the course of a child's birthday party, it does not engender an emotional reaction but is neutral and unremarkable. The court acted within its discretion in admitting the evidence.