Opinion ID: 3158883
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Victim photos

Text: {¶ 56} Johnson argues that the trial court erred by admitting gruesome crime-scene and autopsy photos of Shanon Marks, over his objection, during the 2011 mitigation hearing. According to Johnson, the photos were irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and repetitive and cumulative. {¶ 57} During both phases of Johnson’s 1998 trial, the court admitted crime-scene photos “depict[ing] where Shanon was found and [showing] that portions of her head and other parts of her body had been severely beaten.” Johnson, 88 Ohio St.3d at 117, 723 N.E.2d 1054. The court also admitted autopsy 14 January Term, 2015 photos “depict[ing] Shanon’s head and bodily injuries, with color photographs showing her head with the scalp pulled down to illustrate the damage that occurred to her skull.” Id. The trial court admitted the same photos, over Johnson’s objection, during the 2011 mitigation hearing. {¶ 58} On his first direct appeal to this court, Johnson argued that the trial court erred by admitting these photos during the 1998 mitigation phase. In that case, this court held that the photos were properly admitted at the trial phase because they were relevant, their probative value outweighed the danger of material prejudice to Johnson, and they were not repetitive or cumulative. Id. at 117-118, citing State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 473 N.E.2d 768 (1984), paragraph seven of the syllabus, and Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d at 258, 513 N.E.2d 267. In light of that conclusion, this court summarily rejected Johnson’s claim that the trial court erred by readmitting the photos during the mitigation phase. Johnson at 118, citing DePew, 38 Ohio St.3d at 282-283, 528 N.E.2d 542. {¶ 59} Our 2000 decision rejecting Johnson’s claim remains the law of this case. See State v. Davis, 139 Ohio St.3d 122, 2014-Ohio-1615, 9 N.E.3d 1031, ¶ 27. Accordingly, Johnson cannot prevail on his present claim to the extent that the claim was or could have been pursued in his first appeal. Id. {¶ 60} Johnson does make one argument about the photos that could not have been raised previously because it is specific to the prosecutor’s conduct during the 2011 mitigation hearing. Namely, he argues that the trial court erred by allowing the state to show “many of the same images    multiple times during the sentencing phase.” The state displayed ten photos of Shanon during opening statements. The jury saw some of the images again during Officer Robert Randolph’s testimony and others again during the coroner’s testimony. But the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to publish certain images twice, where the prosecution was reasonably employing the images to illustrate its argument and facilitate witness testimony. See State v. Strong, 142 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO S.W.3d 702, 720-721 (Mo.2004) (en banc) (rejecting defendant’s claim that trial court erred by allowing prosecutor to present a slideshow including gruesome images, most of which had already been admitted at trial phase, during penaltyphase closing arguments). {¶ 61} Thus, the trial court did not err by admitting the challenged photos or permitting the prosecutor to publish them to the jury more than once.