Opinion ID: 1144129
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Additional contentions of error.

Text: Defendant raises two additional claims of error which are of no merit and which may be disposed of with little discussion. a. Admission of illegally seized evidence: (10) Defendant challenges the admission of certain prosecution evidence, contending that the evidence was obtained under the authority of defective search warrants. Defendant raised no objection to the admission of this evidence at trial, however, and thus under settled principles he is precluded from raising the instant contention for the first time on appeal. ( Robison v. Superior Court (1957) 49 Cal.2d 186, 187 [316 P.2d 1]; People v. Rojas (1961) 55 Cal.2d 252, 260 [10 Cal. Rptr. 465, 358 P.2d 921, 85 A.L.R.2d 252].) b. Admission of color photograph of victims: (11) Defendant attacks the admission of three color photographs of the deceased as unduly inflammatory. In addressing a similar claim in People v. Goodridge (1969) 70 Cal.2d 824, 836 [76 Cal. Rptr. 421, 452 P.2d 637], we declared: The test for admissibility is whether, in the discretion of the trial court, the probative value of the exhibits outweighs their inflammatory effect. [Citations.] The color photographs in the instant case aided the jury in reconstructing the physical surroundings of the crime as well as the manner in which the victim's wounds were inflicted. Defendant makes no specific showing that the pictures were so duplicative or so inflammatory that the court's admission constituted an abuse of its discretion. (See People v. Conley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 310, 326 [49 Cal. Rptr. 815, 411 P.2d 911].)