Opinion ID: 2623326
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of victim photographs and crime scene videotape

Text: At a pretrial hearing to mark exhibits the parties intended to offer into evidence, defendant objected to seven color photographs of the victims and a videotape of the crime scene on the grounds these proposed exhibits were unduly gruesome and more prejudicial than probative. The trial court sustained the objection as to three photographs, but it overruled defense objections to the remaining four photographs and the videotape. Defendant contends the admitted evidence was irrelevant because it had no bearing on the only contested issues, which concerned defendant's specific intent to commit the underlying felonies. He argues, moreover, that any probative value the evidence might possess was far outweighed by its prejudicial impact, given the graphic and bloody images portrayed. The admissibility of victim and crime scene photographs and videotapes is governed by the same rules of evidence used to determine the admissibility of evidence generally: Only relevant evidence is admissible. (Evid.Code, ง 350; see also id., ง 210; People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 171, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 132, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) The trial court has broad discretion in deciding the relevancy of such evidence. ( People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 973, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171; People v. Crittenden, supra, at p. 132, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) Although defendant contends the photographs were inadmissible because they had no bearing on the only disputed question at trial (his mental state), we have made clear that the absence of a defense challenge to particular aspects of the prosecution's case or its witnesses does not render victim photographs irrelevant. ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 973-974, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171; People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 17, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 939 P.2d 748; People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 132-133, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) Here, the photographs of the victims' injuries and the videotape depicting the crime scene taken by investigating officers tended to corroborate Helen Rumsey's account of the incident and were therefore relevant to the prosecution's theory of robbery murder and burglary murder. ( People v. Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 171, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150.) For example, a photograph showing murder victim James Rumsey as he was found by officers, with his face against the chair seat and his knees on the floor, supported Helen's testimony that shortly after defendant stabbed her husband, he turned the body over to gain access to James's back pocket after having tried but failed to get his hand inside the front pocket of James's pants. Two photographs depicting the deep stab wound in Helen Rumsey's neck not only corroborated her testimony but also showed the nature and placement of her wound; in this way, they tended to bolster the prosecution's theory that defendant entered the Rumseys' apartment with the intent to obtain money from them by force, and undermined defendant's testimony describing the stabbings as a startled, reflexive reaction to sudden movements by the victims. ( People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 133, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) Defendant further asserts that because the bloody and graphic nature of the photographs and videotape must have inflamed the jury, the trial court erred in refusing to exclude the evidence as more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. Having reviewed the challenged exhibits, we are satisfied their admission violated neither state evidentiary law nor defendant's federal constitutional rights to fundamental fairness and reliability of verdicts. Although the blood-splattered surroundings and the images of the victims depicted in the photographs and crime scene videotape are disturbing to view, as such evidence always is ( People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 134, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887), none of these exhibits is unduly gruesome or inflammatory. ( People v. Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 171, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150; People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 974, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171; People v. Crittenden, supra, at p. 134, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 243-244, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643.)