Opinion ID: 2487736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vial of Blood and Photographs

Text: First, Armstrong contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a vial of blood and several photographs during his new penalty phase. A trial court's ruling on the admission of photographic evidence will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Davis v. State, 859 So.2d 465, 477 (Fla.2003) (citing Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 648 (Fla.2000)). Below, we discuss the trial court's admission of each of these items into evidence and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Photographs, like all other evidence, are subject to the section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1989), balancing test. Pursuant to section 90.403, Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. In Czubak v. State, 570 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1990), this Court discussed the admissibility of gruesome photographs: This Court has long followed the rule that photographs are admissible if they are relevant and not so shocking in nature as to defeat the value of their relevance. Where photographs are relevant, then the trial judge in the first [instance] and this Court on appeal must determine whether the gruesomeness of the portrayal is so inflammatory as to create an undue prejudice in the minds of the jury and [distract] them from a fair and unimpassioned consideration of the evidence. We have consistently upheld the admission of allegedly gruesome photographs where they were independently relevant or corroborative of other evidence. Id. at 928 (citations omitted). Hertz v. State, 803 So.2d 629, 641 (Fla. 2001). Further, this Court has consistently held that the initial test for determining the admissibility of photographic evidence is relevance, not necessity. See Mansfield, 758 So.2d at 648.