Opinion ID: 1270288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Photograph of Victim's Children

Text: Johnson argues that it was error for the trial court to admit into evidence an enlarged version of a photograph of Edwards's two sons. We disagree. Among the burned remains of Edwards's purse, police found a photograph of Edwards's two sons. The photograph depicted the children sitting on Santa's lap. The photograph was damaged, but discernible. At trial, the prosecutor offered into evidence a crime scene photograph showing Edwards's photograph amidst the charred remains of the purse. The prosecution's photograph measured 8 x 12; Edwards's photograph occupied 2 x 4 of the prosecution's photograph. The prosecution intended to use its photograph to establish that the purse belonged to Edwards. Johnson's attorney objected, arguing the enlarged version was prejudicial to Johnson and unnecessary since the original photograph was available to the jury. The trial judge ruled that the original photograph was too fragile for the jury to handle, and the prosecution's photograph would better assist the jury in examining the item. The defense offered to stipulate that the purse belonged to Edwards, but the prosecutor rejected the offer. The trial judge admitted the photograph into evidence. Ordinarily, the State has the right to prove every element of the crime charged and is not obligated to rely upon a defendant's stipulation. 73 Am.Jur.2d Stipulations § 17, at 557 (1974). The relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of photographs as evidence are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 350 S.E.2d 180 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 940, 107 S.Ct. 1592, 94 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987). However, photographs calculated to arouse the sympathy or prejudice of the jury should be excluded if they are irrelevant or unnecessary to the issues at trial. State v. Middleton, 288 S.C. 21, 339 S.E.2d 692 (1986), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872, 109 S.Ct. 189, 102 L.Ed.2d 158 (1988). Yet, there is no abuse of discretion if the offered photograph serves to corroborate testimony. Id. The photograph of the children was clearly relevant in proving that the purse belonged to Edwards. In turn, establishing Edwards as the owner of the purse served to corroborate King's version of events. Johnson's only objection at trial concerned the enlarged size of the prosecution's reproduction. However, Edwards's photograph only covered 2 x 4 of the prosecution's 8 x 12 photograph. Moreover, the trial court determined that the original photograph was too fragile for the jury to handle and, as a result, admitted the prosecution's photograph into evidence. Johnson nevertheless argues the admission of the photograph was unnecessary because there were other items among the remains bearing the name of Edwards's husband. However, it is generally recognized that the prosecution and the defense should be afforded wide discretion in the selection and presentation of evidence. See State v. Richardson, 253 S.C. 468, 474, 171 S.E.2d 717, 719 (1969)(The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and may, in its discretion, determine what witnesses will be called in presenting such proof.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 955, 90 S.Ct. 427, 24 L.Ed.2d 421 (1969); see also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 426, 96 S.Ct. 984, 993, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)(Attaining the system's goal of accurately determining guilt or innocence requires that both the prosecution and the defense have wide discretion in the conduct of the trial and the presentation of evidence.); People v. District Court In & For Denver, 767 P.2d 239 (Col.1989). We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the prosecution's photograph into evidence.