Opinion ID: 1842460
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Photographs of the Victim's Body

Text: At trial, counsel objected to the admission of every photograph depicting the victim's body. Arbelaez, 775 So.2d at 920. Arbelaez argued in his 3.850 motion that the photographs were prejudicial and cumulative, but we held that his claim was procedurally barred because the issue had not been raised on direct appeal. Id. at 919-20. Arbelaez now argues that his appellate counsel's failure to challenge the admissibility of the photographs amounted to ineffective assistance. We disagree. The admission of photographic evidence is within the trial judge's discretion and a trial judge's ruling on this issue will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of abuse. Davis v. State, 875 So.2d 359, 373 (Fla.2003) (quoting Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 646 (Fla.2000)). Appellate counsel would not have been able to show an abuse of discretion. At trial, counsel objected to ten photographs of the victim's body, all of which the court admitted. Four depicted the victim lying on the dock, where he was placed when he was pulled from the water. Six depicted the victim's autopsy. The trial court said of the dock photographs: I don't find [them] to be excessively gruesome, and they are relevant to show where the child was found ... by the people who brought his body onto the dock. The court initially questioned whether one of the photographs was cumulative, but concluded that it seems to depict something other than what [the similar] picture depicts ... they are both relevant and they are not excessively gruesome. As for the autopsy photographs, the trial court admitted them after the medical examiner testified they would assist him in explaining to the jury the autopsy and his findings. The autopsy photographs showed injuries to the victim's thigh and torso, as well as various different angles of the injuries to the victim's face and head. We have consistently upheld the admission of allegedly gruesome photographs where they were independently relevant or corroborative of other evidence. Czubak v. State, 570 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990). As we stated in Henderson v. State, 463 So.2d 196 (1985), Those whose work products are murdered human beings should expect to be confronted by photographs of their accomplishments. Id. at 200. All ten photographs were deemed relevant either to the crime scene technician's explanation of the location of the victim's body, to the medical examiner's explanation of the findings of the autopsy, or as proof that the victim was strangled and did not die by accidental drowning as Arbelaez claimed. Each of these is clearly a legitimate basis for admitting photographs of a murder victim. See Hertz v. State, 803 So.2d 629, 641-43 (Fla.2001) (finding no abuse of discretion where the photos were relevant to show the position and location of the bodies when they were found and to assist[ ] the crime scene technician in describing the crime scene and were probative of the medical examiner's determination as to the manner of the victims' deaths). The fact that the victim here was a young child does not alter the analysis. See, e.g., Chavez v. State, 832 So.2d 730, 763 (Fla.2002) (affirming the admission into evidence of allegedly cumulative gruesome photographs depicting the body a murdered little boy). Nor does the sheer number of non-cumulative photographs. See Nixon v. State, 572 So.2d 1336, 1342-43 (Fla.1990) (rejecting the notion that seven non-cumulative photographs of a charred murder victim constituted an unnecessarily large number of inflammatory photographs, even though they were extremely gruesome). The photographs were not cumulative and were relevant to disputed issues. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs. Arbelaez has therefore failed to show that his appellate counsel was ineffective, because any challenge to the photographs would have lacked merit. See Valle, 837 So.2d at 908 ([A]ppellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise nonmeritorious claims on appeal.).