Opinion ID: 1172635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Plastic Foam Head With Knitting Needles

Text: (22) Immediately preceding the testimony of coroner Dr. Sara Reddy, defendant objected to the introduction into evidence of a model head, made of plastic foam and pierced with two knitting needles (head exhibit), on grounds of undue prejudice. The trial court denied the motion and the head exhibit was admitted into evidence. Dr. Reddy referred to the head exhibit when describing the trajectory of the bullets used to shoot Dunn. Defendant now contends the trial court erred in denying his motion. We review a trial court order denying a defendant's motion to exclude evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 352 for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 449 [48 Cal. Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373].) On a procedural level, defendant complains the trial court's comments about the head exhibit were too short and conclusory to demonstrate the balancing required by Evidence Code section 352. We do not agree. We have recognized that, when ruling on a section 352 motion, a trial court need not expressly weigh prejudice against probative value, or even expressly state it has done so. All that is required is that the record demonstrate the trial court understood and fulfilled its responsibilities under Evidence Code section 352. ( People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 449.) The record here so demonstrates. Substantively, defendant argues the head exhibit was insufficiently probative because specific intent was not at issue in this case, the knitting needles were cumulative of the coroner's testimony, and the needles served only to inflame the jurors. Defendant is mistaken in all three respects. First, defendant was charged with murder, and he concedes that both first and second degree murder (other than on a theory of implied malice) require a specific intent to kill. In a previous murder case involving crime scene and autopsy photographs, we noted [t]he trial court did not abuse its discretion on relevance where [e]ach of the [autopsy] photographs in question had some tendency in reason to prove malice or intent to kill. ( People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 660.) Second, that the head exhibit may have been somewhat cumulative is not determinative: `[w]e repeatedly have rejected the argument photographs of a murder victim should be excluded as cumulative if the photographs are offered to prove facts established by testimony.' ( People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 450, quoting People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 29 [40 Cal. Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224].) Similarly, [m]annequins may be used as illustrative evidence to assist the jury in understanding the testimony of witnesses or to clarify the circumstances of a crime. ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1291 [18 Cal. Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1] (mannequin impaled with six dowels demonstrating bullet trajectories more probative than prejudicial).) Finally, `a trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of murder victim photographs in the face of a claim ... they are unduly gruesome or inflammatory.' ( People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 449, quoting People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 938 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212].) We conclude similarly as to the exhibit at issue here. Defendant offers no basis for concluding the coroner's head exhibit threatened to create such a prejudicial impact that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it.