Opinion ID: 2614001
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged lack of relevance

Text: In determining the admissibility of the photographic evidence, we apply well-established rules. (17) Only relevant evidence is admissible (Evid. Code, § 350; People v. Garceau, supra, 6 Cal.4th 140, 176-177; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 681 [248 Cal. Rptr. 69, 755 P.2d 253]), and, except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible (Evid. Code, § 351; see also Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d).) Relevant evidence, defined in Evidence Code section 210 as evidence `having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action,' tends `logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference' to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive. [Citations.] ( People v. Garceau, supra, 6 Cal.4th 140, 177.) The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence ( ibid. ; People v. Babbitt, supra, 45 Cal.3d 660, 681), but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence. ( Ibid. ; People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 527 [224 Cal. Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251].) (18) Defendant contends the photographs of the victims were wholly irrelevant because they were probative only of matters that were not in dispute. (See People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1137 [240 Cal. Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306].) The circumstance that defendant did not contest the testimony of the medical examiner and others who located and examined the bodies, however, did not render the photographs irrelevant; rather, the photographic exhibits served to clarify that testimony. ( People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 524 [7 Cal. Rptr.2d 199, 828 P.2d 101].) The prosecution tried the first degree murder charges on the theories that the murders were premeditated or committed in the course of a robbery, and that the murder of William involved torture. The photographs depicting the various knife wounds and blunt trauma to the bodies were relevant to establish the manner in which the victims were killed, including the nature and placement of the victims' wounds. (See People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 938 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212]; People v. Pride, supra, 3 Cal.4th 195, 243; People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1137.) The photographs of the location and condition of the bodies, including the manner in which the victims were bound and gagged, also were relevant to the issue of premeditation and deliberation. ( People v. Garceau, supra, 6 Cal.4th 140, 180-181; People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th 629, 660; People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584, 594 [238 Cal. Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350].) In addition, the nature of the nonfatal wounds inflicted upon William, as well as his facial expression, as shown in the photographs, were relevant to demonstrate the perpetrator's intent to cause the cruel suffering necessary to establish that the murder involved torture. (See People v. Raley, supra, 2 Cal.4th 870, 896-897.) The prosecutor `was not obliged to prove these details solely from the testimony of live witnesses' [citation] or to accept antiseptic stipulations in lieu of photographic evidence. `[T]he jury was entitled to see how the physical details of the scene and the bod[ies] supported the prosecution theory of [first degree murder].' ( People v. Pride, supra, 3 Cal.4th 195, 243.) For the same reason, the evidence thereby provided was relevant as to aggravation of the crimes and the appropriate penalty. ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 666 [280 Cal. Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351]; People v. Sanders, supra, 51 Cal.3d 471, 514.)