Opinion ID: 1057701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 67

Heading: Introduction of Photograph of the Victim

Text: During the testimony of Leonard Porter, a criminal investigator for the District Attorney General's Office, the prosecutor moved to admit a photograph of Atilebawi's injuries. The photograph, taken the week of the trial, depicted the right side of the victim's head and showed a large scar beginning at his forehead and continuing to the back of his head. The prosecutor stated that introduction of the photograph was relevant to show all of these elements of the criminal attempt murder in the first degree.... She further explained that no photographs of Atilebawi's injuries were taken at either the crime scene or the hospital because they were trying to save his life.... The Appellant objected stating that the victim had testified in person and that the photograph failed to prove any element of the crime. The trial court made the following ruling regarding the admission of the photograph: Well, my response to all of what all of you have said would be that as to relevance, it's very relevant. I mean, there is no question it was relevant. It shows the horrific nature of the severe injury that this man sustained, and it tends to corroborate what he testified to and what the doctor from The Med testified to. It's not prejudicial in that it doesn't showit's not gory or bloody, and the jury saw him when he was in here yesterday and saw essentially the same injury. The onlyI think the only plausible argument against allowing it in would be that it would be cumulative. The victim was in here yesterday. But I think that the State's burden to prove their case, I think gives them the right to introduce one photograph. They're not asking to introduce ten or [twenty] but to introduce one photograph that can be shown to the jury to corroborate the injuries that were testified to by the victim himself and by the doctor from The Med ... [t]o show the injuries in general. To show that this man was severely injured by the gunshot wounds to the back of the head, that half his head was blown off to show all of those things of course. The trial court continued: ... It is relevant and it's not prejudicial. It is perhaps somewhat cumulative but thatfor example, had the State offered it into evidence when this victim was on the stand, I would have let them introduce it at that time because I think it's fair to allow at least one photograph of injuries, even though the person is sitting here live at this point in time, to document the record, to remind the jury later in the trial, at closing argument, during deliberations, that this is what this man looks like so that there is an actual photograph of it. Photographs are always by their nature cumulative to some extent. By definition, a photograph is going to be cumulative of something else. You can always have a person come in and testify to what a photograph otherwise depicts.... ... And a photograph will provide [the jury] with that documented evidence that they can look at of injuries that they saw in person four or five days earlier.... On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of the photograph of the surviving victim, arguing that the trial court should have excluded the photograph because of the inevitable danger of unfair prejudice. Additionally, he asserts that the photograph exaggerated the victim's injuries and was irrelevant, as the photograph was taken years after the incident. Finally, the Appellant contends that, since the jury had already seen Atilebawi's injuries during his testimony at trial, the admission of the photograph was prejudicially cumulative. The State responds that the trial court's ruling was proper. Specifically, the State contends that the photograph was relevant to establish the Appellant's intent to murder Atilebawi and that it establishes that Atilebawi suffered serious bodily injury. Both elements are necessary to support convictions of attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202, -403. The State also contends that the photograph illustrated the testimony of Dr. Timmons and Atilebawi. The admission of photographs is generally discretionary with the trial court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not result in the grant of a new trial. State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn.1978). However, a photograph must be relevant to an issue that the jury must decide before it may be admitted into evidence. State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 102 (Tenn.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1071, 119 S.Ct. 1467, 143 L.Ed.2d 551 (1999); State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 758 (Tenn.Crim.App.1993); see also Tenn. R. Evid. 401, 402. Evidence that is not relevant to prove some part of the prosecution's case should not be admitted solely to inflame the jury and prejudice the defendant. Additionally, the probative value of the photograph must outweigh any unfair prejudicial effect that it may have upon the trier of fact. Vann, 976 S.W.2d at 102-03; see also Tenn. R. Evid. 403 ([a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice). While it can be said that photographs of crime victims who suffer serious bodily injury are prejudicial by their very nature, a prejudicial photograph is not per se excludable. What is excluded is evidence which is unfairly prejudicial, in other words, evidence which has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, frequently, though not necessarily, an emotional one. Banks, 564 S.W.2d at 951. The trial court determined that the photograph was relevant and not prejudicial. We agree that the photograph was relevant to supplement the testimony of Dr. Timmons, as well as that of the victim himself. See State v. Cole, 155 S.W.3d 885, 913 (Tenn.2005) (Appendix), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 829, 126 S.Ct. 47, 163 L.Ed.2d 79 (2005). We also agree that the trial court's acknowledgment of the need to preserve a record for the jury is accurate. Additionally, the photograph in question is not particularly gruesome. Thus, we conclude that the probative value of the photograph is not outweighed by its prejudicial effect, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing its admission. Further, it does not affirmatively appear that the admission of the photograph[] has affected the results of the trial. See Banks, 564 S.W.2d at 953. The Appellant is not entitled to relief on this issue.