Opinion ID: 1182165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Aerial Photograph

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred in excluding defense exhibit C, the aerial photograph of the area taken in December 1986, some six months following the undercover operation. The aerial photograph was crucial to the defense because it would illustrate the precise location of the cockfighting pit, with respect to the driveway, and would emphasize the discrepancies in Okata's testimony as to the location of the pit and the area where Appellant was parked. Defense expert Doug Mukai would utilize the exhibit to calculate the distances between certain points as depicted on the exhibit. We review the trial court's exclusion of a photographic exhibit under the abuse of discretion standard. See generally State v. O'Daniel, 62 Haw. 518, 527, 616 P.2d 1383, 1390 (1980) (the trial court is vested with discretion in admitting evidence at trial and such a decision will not be reversed absent an abuse). As we have stated, [t]he test determining whether photographs may be shown to the jury is not whether they are necessary, but whether their probative value outweighs their possible prejudicial effect. State v. Apao, 59 Haw. 625, 639, 586 P.2d 250, 260 (1978) (quoting People v. Steger, 16 Cal.3d 539, 128 Cal.Rptr. 161, 170, 546 P.2d 665, 674 (1976); see also State v. Ahlo, 2 Haw.App. 462, 466, 634 P.2d 421, 424-25 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 981, 102 S.Ct. 2252, 72 L.Ed.2d 858 (1982) (citation omitted). The trial court's exclusion of the photographic exhibit in the present case was based upon a determination that the photograph did not substantially depict the area as it existed in June 1986, and that the exhibit could thereby mislead the jury. In addition, there was another diagram admitted into evidence as defense exhibit A, which more clearly portrayed the area of the alleged offenses. We cannot disagree with the trial court's ruling based on the abuse of discretion test. Okata was unable to recognize the aerial photograph and did not even see where Renton Road was on the photograph. Makanani testified that he recognized the general area, the abutting streets and the cockfight area but he could not identify the cockfighting pit or the dirt pathway leading from Renton Road to the cockfighting area because of the overgrowth. Although Makanani agreed that otherwise the photograph fairly and accurately depicted the area as it looked in 1986, his testimony clearly showed that the photograph was not a fair and accurate representation of the cockfighting area as it looked in early June of 1986. We find that the aerial photograph was properly excluded because it did not subsequently depict the cockfighting pit and its immediate environs. Since the aerial photograph was properly excluded, it follows that the court did not err in disallowing defense expert Mukai's testimony which would have been based upon the exhibit.