Opinion ID: 2197709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limiting Instruction Regarding the Photographs

Text: The first issue is whether the Superior Court erred in denying Massey's requests for limiting jury instructions with respect to the photographs depicting the wounds sustained by the victims. A trial judge has broad discretion to admit or reject photographs depicting a victim's injuries [5] and absent abuse of discretion, the ruling will be sustained on appeal. [6] The standard for reviewing a denial of a requested jury instruction, however, is de novo. [7] Massey does not contend that the photographs were improperly admitted into evidence. His sole claim is that the trial court should have given a limiting instruction to the jury concerning the evidentiary purpose of the photographs because several ... depicted gruesome laceration injuries. Massey's counsel proffered a cautionary instruction but the trial court rejected it, noting that the proffered instruction would be unnecessary because the court had seen far worse pictures before. Because the sidebar conference was not recorded, the content of the proffered instruction cannot be determined. Moreover, Massey has not articulated any reason to support his claim that the admission of the photographs without a limiting instruction was unfairly prejudicial. Massey's sole argument is that the pictures were gruesome and potentially inflammatory. Under D.R.E. 403, the trial judge must determine if the evidentiary value of the disputed evidence is outweighed by potentially unfair prejudice to the defendant. Simply because photographs of a victim ... are gruesome or unpleasant, does not render them prejudicial. [8] Our review of the photographs reveals no unfair prejudice to Massey, who was charged with inflicting serious physical injury ( i.e., knife wounds) upon three of the victims and attempting to kill a fourth. The only purpose for which the photographs were admitted, and the only purpose for which they could be considered by the jury, was to show the nature and extent of the victim's injuries. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give the requested instruction.