Opinion ID: 1153591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Asserted Error in Admitting Evidence

Text: Four photographs, two of which are in color, were admitted over objection on the ground that their sole purpose was to inflame the jury. Three of the photographs show the deceased's bloodstained body slumped down in the cab, and the fourth shows his head with blood around his ear and face. Defendant argues on appeal that the court erred in admitting the photographs since, assertedly, they are gruesome and lack probative value. He points to the fact that the parties stipulated as to the cause of death and that the defense presented was diminished capacity. The facts pointed to, however, do not deprive the photographs of probative value. (2) The photographs are relevant to show the circumstances of the crime ( People v. Conley, 64 Cal.2d 310, 326 [49 Cal. Rptr. 815, 411 P.2d 911]; People v. Reese, 47 Cal.2d 112, 119-120 [301 P.2d 582] [disapproved on other grounds in People v. Morse, 60 Cal.2d 631, 649 (36 Cal. Rptr. 201, 388 P.2d 33, 12 A.L.R.3d 810)]), and constitute circumstantial evidence of malice ( People v. Brawley, 1 Cal.3d 277, 295 [82 Cal. Rptr. 161, 461 P.2d 361]; People v. Arguello, 65 Cal.2d 768, 776 [56 Cal. Rptr. 274, 423 P.2d 202]; People v. Harrison, 59 Cal.2d 622, 627-628 [30 Cal. Rptr. 841, 381 P.2d 665]). It has repeatedly been held to be within the trial court's discretion to determine whether the probative value of such exhibits outweighs their prejudicial effect. ( People v. Salas, 7 Cal.3d 812, 819 [103 Cal. Rptr. 431, 500 P.2d 7]; People v. Terry, 2 Cal.3d 362, 403 [85 Cal. Rptr. 409, 466 P.2d 961]; People v. Brawley, supra ; People v. Bradford, 70 Cal.2d 333, 341-342 [74 Cal. Rptr. 726, 450 P.2d 46].) Although the photographs are unpleasant to view, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in admitting them.