Opinion ID: 1058243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Introduction of Photographs of the Victim

Text: We review the admissibility of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard of review. Ortiz, 276 Va. at 712, 667 S.E.2d at 756. Accurate photographs of a crime scene are not rendered inadmissible solely because they are gruesome ... Juniper, 271 Va. at 413, 626 S.E.2d at 415-16, Walton v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 85, 92, 501 S.E.2d 134, 138, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1046 [119 S.Ct. 602, 142 L.Ed.2d 544] (1998). Such photographs must nevertheless be excluded if their prejudicial effect substantially outweighs their probative value. Walker v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 54, 69, 515 S.E.2d 565, 574 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1125 [120 S.Ct. 955, 145 L.Ed.2d 829] (2000). Teleguz v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 458, 482, 643 S.E.2d 708, 723 (2007). Furthermore, we have stated that [p]hotographs and videotapes of crime scenes are admissible to show motive, intent, method, malice, premeditation, and the atrociousness of the crime. Spencer v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 295, 312, 384 S.E.2d 785, 796 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1093 [110 S.Ct. 1171, 107 L.Ed.2d 1073] (1990); Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 270-71, 257 S.E.2d 808, 816 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 972 [100 S.Ct. 1666, 64 L.Ed.2d 249] (1980). If the photographs accurately depict the crime scene, they are not rendered inadmissible simply because they are gruesome or shocking. Gray v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 313, 343, 356 S.E.2d 157, 173, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 873 [108 S.Ct. 207, 98 L.Ed.2d 158] (1987). Goins v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 442, 459, 470 S.E.2d 114, 126 (1996). Thomas argues that the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victim because the prejudicial value outweighed the probative value. Thomas concedes that she did not object to photographs of the shed where the victim's body was found or photographs of the victim's skull that depicted the blunt force trauma to the [victim's] head. However, Thomas argues that the photographs of the victim's body were more prejudicial than probative due to the state of decomposition of the victim's body. After lengthy argument on this issue, the trial court determined that the probative value of the autopsy photographs and the photographs showing the victim's body outweighed the prejudicial effect. Major Roberts, who laid the foundation for the photographs of the victim's body in the shed, used the photographs to demonstrate to the jury how he found the victim's body that had been hidden in what he described as a chicken coop behind a black fender well and a door. Also, Dr. Bill Gormley, the testifying forensic pathologist, used the autopsy photographs to explain to the jury the nature and extent of victim's injuries  both the shotgun wound and the lethal head trauma. Even though the photographs were graphic and gruesome, the photographs demonstrated both the method and violence of the crime and that the body was hidden. As noted above, evidence with probative value may be excluded only if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs the probative value. Teleguz, 273 Va. at 482, 643 S.E.2d at 723; Walker, 258 Va. at 69, 515 S.E.2d at 574. In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim's body.