Opinion ID: 2515770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Photograph of Antaya Howard's Body

Text: At the penalty phase, the prosecution sought to introduce in evidence two photographs of Antaya Howard's body as police officers found it in her car. The prosecutor explained that he was offering one photograph to show the blood on the forearm and the other to show both the position of the clothing on her body and the position of the body in the hatchback area of the car. The defense objected to both photographs under Evidence Code section 352, remarking that the defense was not disputing that defendant had killed Howard. The trial court sustained the objection to the first photograph because it's pretty grotesque as far as the face and the neck is extremely black and bloated. But the court overruled the objection as to the second photograph, remarking that it was a very close question. The admission of photographs of a victim lies within the broad discretion of the trial court when a claim is made that they are unduly gruesome or inflammatory. ( People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 133, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) On appeal, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the trial court's ruling. ( People v. Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 609, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635.) Applying that standard here, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion. By showing the position of the victim's clothing on her body, some of her injuries, and the position of her body as it was folded into the small hatchback area behind the rear seat of the car, the photograph was relevant to assist the jury in assessing the aggravating force of the murder and rape or attempted rape of Antaya Howard. (See People v. Wader, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 655, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 788, 854 P.2d 80.) Although the photograph, which we have reviewed, is somewhat gruesome, as murder victim photographs almost invariably are, it is not shocking or inflammatory. The trial court carefully weighed the potential prejudice and excluded another photograph that was more gruesome in its depiction of the victim's face. Defendant contends that the trial court's ruling admitting the photographs denied him various rights under the state and federal Constitutions, but he did not object on these grounds in the trial court, and he does not argue here that there are constitutional standards of admissibility more exacting than the statutory standards imposed by the Evidence Code. Having concluded that the evidence was properly admitted under statutory evidence standards, we also reject these belated and derivative constitutional claims.