Opinion ID: 2383955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of the Collision Photographs

Text: In granting defendants' motion to exclude the use of photographic evidence, the trial justice found that the collision photographs were unduly prejudicial. The plaintiff argues that the photographs were relevant to show his theory of injury and that they were not unduly prejudicial. [4] In granting defendants' motion in limine, the trial justice declared: Your description  your description of the accident as you contend it happened is very illustrative. And I don't doubt that between you and your client and the doctors they can convey that to the jury, and they will ultimately weigh those facts. So the photos are not necessary. In fact, they would be, the Court would find, unduly prejudicial. No question they'd be  everything's prejudicial. This is unduly prejudicial. The trial justice did not suggest that the photographs were irrelevant, but found that, in light of the testimony to be produced by plaintiff, the photographs were unduly prejudicial. However, the trial justice offered no reason why she found the photographs unduly prejudicial or, in fact, how they would prejudice defendants' case. We deem this to be error. It is well settled that the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial justice. State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 504 (R.I.2004) (quoting State v. Reis, 815 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I.2003)). [W]hen reviewing such decisions, we will not conclude that a trial justice abused his or her discretion as long as some grounds to support the decision appear in the record. Id. at 505 (quoting State v. Pena-Rojas, 822 A.2d 921, 924 (R.I.2003)). Although ruling on the admissibility of photographs requires an exercise of discretion, the trial justice must articulate his or her reasons for the exercise of that discretion. See State v. Barnes, 777 A.2d 140, 144 (R.I.2001) (when acting pretrial to exclude relevant evidence, the trial justice should set forth clearly his or her reasons for granting or denying a motion in limine ). The determination of the value of evidence should normally be placed in the control of the party who offers it. Wells v. Uvex Winter Optical, Inc., 635 A.2d 1188, 1193 (R.I.1994). Moreover, [u]nless evidence is of limited or marginal relevance and enormously prejudicial, the trial justice should not act to exclude it. Id. Our review of the record reveals no basis on which to characterize the photographs as unduly prejudicial. Under Rule 401 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, relevant evidence is defined as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 402 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence provides that [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law. We are satisfied that the photographs at issue in this trial were relevant as tending to prove that defendants' vehicle became wedged underneath plaintiff's vehicle, thereby supporting plaintiff's theory of the case. The plaintiff was entitled to all reasonable inferences that could have been drawn from that offer of proof. Rule 403 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence vests a trial justice with discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. However, even assuming the trial justice found the evidence to be of limited or marginal relevance, Wells, 635 A.2d at 1193, without some explanation of how the photographs were considered prejudicial and that the prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence, we cannot deem their exclusion to be an exercise of sound discretion. Therefore, we conclude that the trial justice abused her discretion in excluding the collision photographs. The defendants further contend that expert testimony is required to establish a link between the severity of injuries suffered in a motor vehicle collision and photographs of the damaged vehicles. This Court has never held that expert testimony is necessary to introduce into evidence photographs of vehicles damaged in a collision to prove causation of passengers' injuries. We decline to do so today.