Opinion ID: 888416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 13 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce photographs featuring the victim's injuries? ¶ 14 The District Court admitted photographs of Heltne's injuries into evidence over Johnson's objection, ruling the photos were probative, relevant and not overly gruesome or prejudicial. Johnson claims the District Court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs because the existence of bodily injury to Heltne was not disputed. ¶ 15 Relying on State v. Bristow, 267 Mont. 170, 882 P.2d 1041 (1994), Johnson contends that introduction of the photographs was per se prejudicial because they were inherently inflammatory. In Bristow, the fact of bodily injury was not in dispute and, as a result, we held that the district court had erred in admitting color photographs of the victim's injuries into evidence. Bristow, 267 Mont. at 176, 882 P.2d at 1045. ¶ 16 Here, Johnson's position at trial was that Heltne's injuries did not constitute the serious bodily injury required for aggravated assault. Disputing the severity of Heltne's injuries placed the existence of serious bodily injury in dispute and, therefore, Bristow is not applicable here. ¶ 17 In addition, we observe that Johnson failed to transmit the photographs in question for our review. The appellant bears the burden of establishing error by the trial court. City of Billings v. Peterson, 2004 MT 232, ¶ 19, 322 Mont. 444, ¶ 19, 97 P.3d 532, ¶ 19 (citation omitted). Pursuant to M.R.App. P. 8(2), it is incumbent upon the appellant to transmit the proper record on appeal. We previously have noted that our ability to review whether photographs were properly admitted is inhibited when the photographs are not provided on appeal. State v. Kearney, 2005 MT 171, ¶ 16, 327 Mont. 485, ¶ 16, 115 P.3d 214, ¶ 16. ¶ 18 In addition to failing to arrange for transmittal of the photographs as in Kearney, Johnson has offered no explanation of how or why the photographs prejudiced his case. See Kearney, ¶ 16. The District Court observed that only a couple of them show a bloody face and then a later one shows significant bruising. ¶ 19 We hold that Johnson has not established that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting photographs of Heltne's injuries.