Opinion ID: 1159477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Asserted Error in Admitting Certain Evidence

Text: (10a) Baker contends that the wallet taken from him at the time of his arrest was obtained as a result of an illegal arrest. He asserts that the complaint and warrant for his arrest were invalid under People v. Sesslin, 68 Cal.2d 418 [67 Cal. Rptr. 409, 439 P.2d 321], and that the record does not show there was probable cause for his arrest. He admits that at the trial no objection was made to the wallet but claims he is not barred from now raising the matter because his trial preceded the decision in Sesslin. He requests that the record on appeal be augmented to include the complaint and arrest warrant, copies of which are attached to his request. (11) The complaint and arrest warrant were not before the trial court, and it is an elementary rule that ordinarily matters not presented to the trial court and hence not a proper part of the record on appeal will not be considered on appeal. ( People v. Merriam, 66 Cal.2d 390, 396-397 [58 Cal. Rptr. 1, 426 P.2d 151]; People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 776 [51 Cal. Rptr. 691, 415 P.2d 35]; People v. Arguello, 61 Cal.2d 210, 213 [37 Cal. Rptr. 601, 390 P.2d 377] [vacated on another ground 63 Cal.2d 566 [47 Cal. Rptr. 485, 407 P.2d 661]]; see Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1963) p. 666; see also rule 13 of Cal. Rules of Court.) (10b) The request to augment the record is denied. Since the record does not include the complaint and arrest warrant, or evidence of their contents, the record does not support Baker's claim that they were invalid under Sesslin. Furthermore Baker may not challenge the validity of the warrant for the first time on appeal since the decision in Sesslin did not represent such a substantial change in the former rule as to excuse an objection anticipating that decision. ( People v. Groves, 71 Cal.2d 1196 [80 Cal. Rptr. 745, 458 P.2d 985].) (12a) Four color photographs of the decedent were admitted over objection on the ground that they were gruesome and would serve primarily to inflame the passions of the jury. Defendants contend that the court thereby erred and assert that the color photographs were not needed because black and white photographs depicting the victim as he was found at the scene of the crime were admitted and the autopsy surgeon testified regarding the number and description of the wounds. (13) When assertedly gruesome photographs are presented, the trial court in the exercise of its discretion must decide whether their probative value outweighs their possible prejudicial effect. ( People v. Arguello, 65 Cal.2d 768, 775 [56 Cal. Rptr. 274, 423 P.2d 202]; People v. Mathis, 63 Cal.2d 416, 423 [46 Cal. Rptr. 785, 406 P.2d 65]; People v. Harrison, 59 Cal.2d 622, 627-628 [30 Cal. Rptr. 841, 381 P.2d 665].) (12b) The color photographs here in question were taken at the coroner's office before the autopsy and show the wounds on the nearly nude body of the decedent. The wounds more clearly appear in the color photographs than in the black and white ones, since in the latter the decedent is fully dressed. The color photographs were used by the autopsy surgeon to point out to the jury the numerous lacerations on the body. In addition to illustrating and clarifying the autopsy surgeon's testimony, the pictures constitute circumstantial evidence of malice. They were also relevant at the penalty trial to show facts in aggravation of the penalty. (See People v. Talbot, 64 Cal.2d 691, 708 [51 Cal. Rptr. 417, 414 P.2d 633] [overruled on another issue in People v. Ireland, 70 Cal.2d 522, 539-540 [75 Cal. Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580].) Although the photographs are unpleasant to view, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in admitting them.