Opinion ID: 6104581
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of in-life photo

Text: ¶69 Thompson argues the trial court erred by admitting an in-life photo of the victims in violation of his Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and article 2, sections 4 and 24 of the Arizona Constitution. Thompson further argues the photo was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial because it showed a happy, engaged couple. We review the admission of in-life photos for an abuse of discretion. See Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 141 ¶ 115. ¶70 Trial courts follow a three-step process to determine whether to admit an in-life photo. See State v. Doerr, 193 Ariz. 56, 64 ¶ 29 (1998). The court initially must decide if the photo is relevant. Id. If it is, the court must then consider “whether the photograph has a tendency to inflame or incite passion in the jurors.” Id. The probative value of the photo must then be weighed against the risk of unfair prejudice. Id.; see also Ariz. R. Evid. 403. Courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to admit photos. See State v. Spreitz, 190 Ariz. 129, 141 (1997). ¶71 The trial court did not abuse its broad discretion here. The photo had slight relevance in depicting the victims before they incurred their injuries. But as the trial court observed, the photo could “shed light on the circumstances, given the gruesome photographs the jury [would] be viewing.” See Doerr, 193 Ariz. at 64 ¶ 32 (observing it is not inappropriate to “personalize the victim and help to complete the story for the jurors,” as long as the photos do not “undermin[e] the defendant’s right to an objective determination of guilt or innocence”). ¶72 We cannot say the court erred by finding that the photo’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by a risk of unfair prejudice. See Ariz. R. Evid. 403. The photograph, chosen among others rejected by the court as overly emotional, merely showed Dunn and Edwards smiling at the camera and leaning toward each other over a large 20 STATE V. THOMPSON Opinion of the Court rock. See Ellison, 213 Ariz. at 141 ¶ 115 (stating photos that are “‘benign’ as compared to the victims’ post-death photos” are generally not at risk of being unfairly prejudicial). The court also minimized any risk of unfair prejudice by instructing the jury it “[m]ust not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice.” See State v. Carson, 210 Ariz. 54, 71 ¶¶ 85–87 (2005). ¶73 Alternatively, even if the court erred in admitting the photograph, the error was harmless because it did not materially contribute to or affect the verdict. See Doerr, 193 Ariz. at 64 ¶ 33. Just as we found in Doerr, “[g]iven the overwhelming physical evidence introduced at trial and the benign nature of the photograph itself, we conclude that this exhibit did not materially affect the outcome of the case.” Id.