Opinion ID: 1608539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Admissibility of Color Photographs.

Text: Broadlawns also argues that the admission of photographs of the crime scene and nude color photographs of Jillene's body taken at her autopsy should have been excluded by the district court because (1) the admission of the photographs was prejudicial and inflamed the jury against Broadlawns and (2) the photographs were not relevant to any issue that was properly before the jury, including damages for pre-death physical and mental pain and suffering. For its part, the Estate claims that the photos were properly provided as an illustrative tool to assist the jury in assessing the testimony of the investigating police officer and Dr. Garrity, both of whom provided testimony relevant to the issue of Jillene's pre-death pain and suffering. We have long subscribed to the principle that, in regard to photographs ... their admission or exclusion rests largely in the discretion of the district court since it has the opportunity to examine the photographs and hear the evidence given by the witness who identifies them and describes what they show or do not show. Twyford v. Weber, 220 N.W.2d 919, 924 (Iowa 1974). This is more clearly the case where photographs `are intended to perform the office of an illustration or diagram in aid of oral or written testimony, rather than as being in themselves independent evidence.' Id. at 925. (citation omitted). Ultimately, [t]he fact photographs and slides may be gruesome or tend to create sympathy does not render them inadmissible if there is just reason for their admission. Id. at 926. As we previously explained, we do not believe damages for pre-death pain and suffering were warranted in this case. For this reason, the photographs were not relevant to any issue properly before the jury and there was no just reason for their admission. Id. Thus, the district court's admission of the photos of Jillene amounted to an abuse of discretion. We do not believe, however, that the admission of the photographs amounts to reversible error. This conclusion rests on an examination of the damages ultimately awarded by the jury. The jury awarded damages in four distinct categories: (1) present worth of the value of the Estate, (2) pre-death physical pain and suffering, (3) pre-death mental pain and suffering, and (4) punitive damages. We will not interfere with a jury's damages award unless it is (1) flagrantly excessive or inadequate, or (2) shocks the conscience or sense of justice, or (3) raises a presumption it is the result of passion, prejudice or other ulterior motive, or (4) lacks evidential support. ' Revere Transducers, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 595 N.W.2d 751, 769 (Iowa 1999) (citation omitted). The district court set aside the punitive damages award and our opinion sets aside the award of pre-death physical and mental pain and suffering damages because all three of these categories of damages lack[ed] evidential support. See id. The only damages remaining were awarded for the present worth of the Estate. We thus examine that award to determine whether it had substantial evidentiary support in the record, for `[i]f the verdict has support in the evidence the [other factors, including prejudice,] will hardly arise.' Miller v. Young, 168 N.W.2d 45, 53 (Iowa 1969) (citation omitted). We believe that the award of present worth damages had substantial evidentiary support provided by the testimony of the Estate's damages expert. Thus, we do not believe that Broadlawns suffered prejudice even though the admission of the photographs was an abuse of discretion. We conclude that the district court's error on this issue does not require reversal.