Opinion ID: 1223959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Autopsy and Blood Spatter Photographs

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting in evidence four autopsy photographs and three blood spatter photographs. In an earlier pronouncement, we explained: The admissibility of photographic exhibits is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. To be admissible into evidence, photographs must be relevant. When the photographs, however, have the tendency to incite passion or inflame the jury, the court must go beyond the question of relevancy and consider whether the probative value of the exhibit outweighs the danger of prejudice created by admission of the exhibit. Bolton, 182 Ariz. at 305, 896 P.2d at 845 (citations omitted); see also State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 485, 917 P.2d 200, 214 (1996); State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46, 60, 906 P.2d 579, 593 (1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2558, 135 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1996). Defendant argues the autopsy photographs were irrelevant because the cause of death was not disputed and because the pictures did not prove premeditation. The state contends that the autopsy photographs were relevant to show the location, size, and shape of the bullet wounds, thus illustrating the expert testimony of the medical examiner and the police detective. Defendant claims the autopsy photographs were gruesome, but the state argues the photographs were not gruesome because they did not include unnecessary parts of the victim's body and the wounds and surrounding skin were cleansed of any excess blood and brain tissue. Defendant further contends that the blood spatter photographs were irrelevant and cumulative and were introduced solely to demonstrate the gruesomeness of the crime. The state counters by explaining that the photographs aided jurors in understanding testimony regarding the characteristics and location of blood spatter in order to determine sequence and order of shots. The trial court found the photographs relevant and not particularly gruesome. After viewing the photographs and related testimony, we conclude similarly that the record demonstrates this finding was not an abuse of discretion. The photographs were relevant and their probative value outweighed any possible tendency to incite passion or inflame the jury.