Opinion ID: 2376213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Challenged Photograph

Text: On March 20, 1997, the morning of the assaults, four photographs were taken of Ms. Clark, and the following day two more photographs were taken. The defendant moved to exclude the two photographs taken on March 21, 1997 from being admitted into evidence because he claims that those pictures show the progression of Ms. Clark's injuries and were offered only to inflame the jury. Rule 403 of our Rules of Evidence provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to a defendant. Discretion is vested in the trial justice first to determine the materiality or relevance of photographs State v. Bustamante, 756 A.2d 758, 767 (R.I.2000), and then if found to be relevant, to determine whether their probative value is outweighed by the danger of any undue prejudice. See State v. Belloli, 766 A.2d 928, 930 (R.I.2001). Certainly all relevant evidence offered against a defendant has the potential of being prejudicial to the defendant, and our Rule 403 leaves to the trial justice the obligation to determine when and if it rises to the level of being unduly prejudicial. If it does rise to that level, then such evidence should not be admitted. On the record before us, it appears clear that the trial justice properly considered that the state was required to prove that an act of unconsented sexual intercourse occurred between Arruda and Ms. Clark and whether it was accompanied by force and coercion. The photographs portray the severity of injuries Ms. Clark testified were inflicted upon her by Arruda so as to coerce her into committing the sexual acts she testified were forced upon her. In addition, they corroborate the injuries that Gary Cote testified he observed when she ran from Arruda's vehicle. The fact that the photographs were taken one day after the incident is irrelevant. What is material and relevant is that the nature of the progression of her injuries is indicative of the force originally used to inflict those injuries. This Court upholds a trialjustice's discretion to admit inflammatory photographs if their probative value outweighs the prejudice. See State v. Griffin, 567 A.2d 796, 800-01 (R.I.1989). In this case, all of the photographs admitted depict injuries, but the two challenged photographs taken the day after the incident best illustrate the magnitude of force that was used. Since force exacted by Arruda as well as his credibility regarding whether, as he testified, the sexual acts were simply consensual were issues to be determined by the trial jury in this case, the trial justice did not err in admitting the photographs taken one day after the incident.