Opinion ID: 2326863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Admissibility of Evidence Claims

Text: Page's final three arguments relate to the admissibility of evidence. We review the trial judge's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. [37] When a defendant fails to make a timely objection to the evidence, however, we review only for plain error. [38]
First, Page argues that the trial judge erred by admitting photographs depicting the remains of Reinford's car and charred body. Specifically, Page argues that, in light of the autopsy photographs which already showed Reinford's body, the photographs of the burnt car were cumulative and unduly prejudicial. The trial judge disagreed, ruling that the photos were admissible because they would aid the jury in understanding the State arson investigator's testimony with respect to the origin of the fire. Trial judges have very broad discretion in admitting photographic evidence of victims' injuries. [39] Because Page's indictment included one count of second degree arson, the State had the burden to prove that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It was not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to conclude in this case that the photographs of Reinford's car and body had probative value which was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Further, the jury acquitted Page of this charge, rendering this claim of error moot. [40]
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.