Opinion ID: 2621639
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Photographs and Videotape of Murder Victims

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude a videotape of the crime scene and certain photographs of the bodies of murder victims Earl and Doris Garcia, and thereby violated defendant's rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and parallel provisions of the state Constitution. At the outset of trial, before jury selection had commenced, the defense moved to exclude from evidence a videotape of the crime scene (the Garcias' home) showing the bodies of the homicide victims, Earl and Doris Garcia, with the knife wounds, and also certain crime scene and autopsy photographs. Defendant objected to this evidence as cumulative, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial. After viewing the videotape and the photographs, and hearing counsel's arguments, the trial court denied the motion as to the videotape and as to some photographs, but it granted the motion as to other photographs that it found to be cumulative or unduly prejudicial. More specifically, the trial court excluded six of the 16 autopsy photographs of Earl Garcia's body; two of the 10 autopsy photographs of Doris Garcia's body; and 24 of the 39 crime scene photographs. Defendant argues that the trial court should have excluded the crime scene videotape and all photographs of the victims' bodies. We find no abuse of discretion. The admissibility of victim and crime scene photographs and videotapes is governed by the same rules of evidence used to determine the admissibility of evidence generally: Only relevant evidence is admissible. [Citations.] The trial court has broad discretion in deciding the relevancy of such evidence. [Citations.] ( People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 641, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) In a prosecution for murder, photographs of the murder victim and the crime scene are always relevant to prove how the charged crime occurred, and the prosecution is not obliged to prove these details solely from the testimony of live witnesses. ( People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 706, 268 Cal.Rptr. 706, 789 P.2d 887.) Here, the videotape and the photographs showing the wounds inflicted on the two murder victims and the positions in which their bodies were found in the house were relevant to corroborate and illustrate the testimony of the investigating officers about the condition in which they found the crime scene and to corroborate and illustrate the testimony of the autopsy surgeon about the victims' knife wounds. They were relevant to establish that two murders had occurred and to support the prosecution's theories of premeditation and deliberation and felony murder in the commission of robbery and burglary. Although defendant contends the photographs were inadmissible because they had no bearing on the only disputed question at trial (his mental state), we have made clear that the absence of a defense challenge to particular aspects of the prosecution's case or its witnesses does not render victim photographs irrelevant. [Citations.] ( People v. Lewis, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 641, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.) The photographs and videotape were not inadmissible as being cumulative of the witness testimony they were used to illustrate and support. We have often rejected the argument that photographs of a murder victim should be excluded as cumulative if the facts for which the photographs are offered have been established by testimony. [Citations.] ( People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 441, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610; accord, People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 532, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 285, 49 P.3d 1032.) Because the photographs and videotape could assist the jury in understanding and evaluating the witnesses' testimony, the trial court was not required to exclude them as cumulative. Finally, the photographs and videotape were not inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352 on the ground that their probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice to defendant. We apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard to a trial court's rulings under Evidence Code section 352. ( People v. Michaels, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 532, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 285, 49 P.3d 1032; People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1136, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 33 P.3d 450.) Having reviewed the challenged exhibits, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the admission of these exhibits did not violate defendant's constitutional rights. Although the depictions of the victims' bodies are disturbing, as such evidence always is, none of the exhibits is unduly gruesome or inflammatory.