Opinion ID: 2639585
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of a Photograph of the Crime Scene

Text: Over objection, the court admitted a photograph of the crime scene. Defendant argues the court erred because the photograph was based on inadmissible hearsay and was misleading. At a hearing outside the presence of the jury, Detective Rodriguez, the investigating officer, testified that in the photograph he was standing where Oracio and Mario Jimenez had told him the gunman was standing. Previously, when shown that photograph, Oracio had testified the gunman was in a different location, then he said he was not sure where the gunman was in relation to where a person in the photograph (presumably Detective Rodriguez) was standing. Mario testified that the gunman was standing in the street, a different position than in the photograph. Defendant argues that the previous statements of Oracio and Mario were hearsay. However, prior inconsistent statements of a witness are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid.Code, §§ 770, 1235; People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 296, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 554, 73 P.3d 433.) Defendant claims the previous statements were not inconsistent because at trial the witnesses merely said they could not remember where the gunman was standing. The witnesses did claim lack of memory on a number of occasions, but they also gave clearly inconsistent testimony. Moreover, to the extent a claimed lack of memory amounts to deliberate evasion, as the court could readily have found here, inconsistency is implied. ( People v. Sapp, supra, at p. 296, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 554, 73 P.3d 433.) Defendant's hearsay objection lacks merit. Defendant also contends the court should have excluded the photograph as irrelevant and, if relevant, unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352 because it was misleading in three respects: (1) the location of the photographer was unknown, (2) Detective Rodriguez was taller than the gunman, and (3) the photograph was taken with a flash so it did not show the actual lighting conditions. The trial court has broad discretion both in determining the relevance of evidence and in assessing whether its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. ( People v. Horning (2004) 34 Cal.4th 871, 900, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 305, 102 P.3d 228.) Here, the court carefully exercised its discretion. Detective Rodriguez testified that the photographer was standing behind a certain car, although he was not sure exactly where. As the trial court noted, the photograph was offered to show where the witnesses had said the gunman was standing. It was clearly probative on this point even if the exact position of the photographer was not known. It was not offered to show the height of the gunman or the lighting conditions. The court invited defense counsel to cross-examine Detective Rodriguez on these points, and he did. The jury learned of, and could readily understand, the differences between the photograph and the crime scene. Hence, the court acted within its discretion in admitting the photograph as illustrating where the witnesses placed the gunman. ( People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1114-1115, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1 [inaccuracies in a videotape, including different lighting conditions, did not make it inadmissible].)