Opinion ID: 2326863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Murder Scene Video

Text: Page also argues that the Superior Court erred by admitting a video of the crime scene that included images of Maneeka Plant's body. Page objected to portions that contained close-ups of her body and the surrounding blood on the grounds that its only purpose was to inflame the jury. The trial judge concluded that the probative value of the video outweighed any danger of prejudice because the video would aid in understanding Muhammad Reinford's testimony and help show that the killing was intentional because of the positions of the victim and condition of the house. Page argues that the State could have accomplished each of its above stated goals by means of photographs or a diagram or that a more technologically appropriate way of editing the video could have been done in [this] era of computer graphics and digital photography. In response to a similar argument in Casalvera v. State, [41] this Court noted that a prosecutor is not required to minimize [the brutality of a criminal act] by selecting the least dramatic means of presenting his evidence. [42] This Court has further explained: [T]he fact that a photograph of the victim may be gruesome or unpleasant does not render it inadmissible. The trial judge must determine if the probative and material evidentiary value of the photograph, with regard to establishing an element or elements of the alleged offense, is substantially outweighed by potentially unfair prejudice to the defendant. [43] The mere fact that the video may have contained some gruesome or unpleasant scenes does not render it per se inadmissible. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in admitting this evidence.