Opinion ID: 1226660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Use of Photographs, Video Tape, and View

Text: Swann complains of prejudice in the admission of photographs and a video tape of the crime scene and the victim, coupled with a view of the premises. He asserts that the photographs and video tape depict especially graphic or horrific scenes, tending to distract the jury from the matter at hand and inflame their passions. Swann also argues that the only purpose [of the view] was to humanize the victim. Photographs and video tapes of crime scenes are admissible to show motive, intent, method, malice, premeditation and the atrociousness of the crimes. Spencer v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 295, 312, 384 S.E.2d 785, 796 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1093, 110 S.Ct. 1171, 107 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1990). And the use of photographs and a view of the crime scene to enable the jury to understand what happened at a crime scene is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Quesinberry, 241 Va. at 378, 402 S.E.2d at 226-27. Swann was the only living witness to Richter's murder. In his statements to the police, Swann implied (1) that he had shot Richter at close range solely to protect himself from imminent harm, and (2) that Richter grabbed him in the living room and pushed him out the front door. However, the photographs and video tape show that Richter may have been shot near the kitchen entry into the living room. There were no signs of struggle in the 13-foot distance between the threshold of the front door and the kitchen door. The photographs and video tape of the small, furniture-filled living room and Richter's 350-pound body, as well as the view, could have assisted the jury in understanding the crime scene and in determining the distance between the two men when Swann shot Richter. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings regarding this evidence and the view.