Opinion ID: 171052
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Photograph of Victim’s Injuries

Text: The district court has wide discretion in deciding whether to admit photographs of a victim’s injuries. The trial court’s “discretion in balancing the prejudicial effect and probative value of photographic evidence of this type is rarely disturbed.” United States v. Sides, 944 F.2d 1554, 1562 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Soundingsides, 820 F.2d 1232, 1242–43 (10th Cir. 1987)). In a criminal trial, a jury is “entrusted with the weighty obligation to find the facts” and it is “incompatible with that degree of trust to attempt to ‘protect’ -7- them from the evidence” of the crime. United States v. Naranjo, 710 F.2d 1465, 1468–69 (10th Cir. 1983). Tsosie argues the parties had stipulated to the element of serious bodily injury, and that the photograph of the victim’s injuries was therefore cumulative and unduly prejudicial. As the government correctly points out, however, there was no such stipulation. The parties stipulated to the opinion a medical expert, Dr. Bishara, would have offered regarding the seriousness of the victim’s injuries. The stipulation said that if Dr. Bishara were called to the stand he would testify the victim’s injuries, in his opinion, rose to the level of “serious bodily injury.” R., Vol. V at 112–13. The photograph was offered in conjunction with the stipulation regarding Dr. Bishara’s medical opinion to prove this element of the count charged. 1 The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence the single photograph of the victim’s facial injuries. The district court correctly noted the photograph was probative of the issue of serious bodily injury for which the government had the burden of proof and was not unduly prejudicial. The government’s photograph was taken after the victim had been treated for his 1 Serious bodily injury was an element of the count charging assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian Country. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (“Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person . . . assault resulting in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title) . . . shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.”). -8- injuries, his facial wound had been washed, and he had put on a clean shirt. There is little chance the photograph would have inflamed the passions of the jury; rather, the picture simply afforded the jury an opportunity to evaluate the seriousness of the victim’s injury. The photograph was not unduly prejudicial under our well-established case law, and the district court was within its discretion in allowing the photograph. See Sides, 944 F.2d at 1562; Soundingsides, 820 F.2d at 1243; Naranjo, 710 F.2d at 1468.