Opinion ID: 853845
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mug Shot of Codefendant

Text: During the investigation of McVea's killing, a detective showed Jones three photo arrays from which Jones picked out the three men who shot at him and McVea. Two of those arrays contained no indication that they were comprised of mug shots. The third, however, consisted of six separate photographs of men with prominent height chart markings behind them. Defense counsel objected on the basis that the jury might find [Powell] guilty by association because he's allegedly hanging around with alleged convicted felons. . . . The State responded that these are the best pictures that [it] could get, and argued that the array was relevant and probative because it demonstrated that Jones was able to pick these three individuals out. The trial court found that the array was comprised of what you call traditional mug shots, but the booking placards had been covered and only the height chart remained visible. In overruling the objection, the trial court observed that the State has taken as many steps as they can to conceal the fact that they are a mug shot. The detective has been careful not to use that phrase when describing the photographs, as has the State. . . . We review the admission of photographic evidence for an abuse of discretion. Humphrey v. State, 680 N.E.2d 836, 842 (Ind.1997). To constitute error, the probative value of the photograph must be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Ind. Evidence Rule 403. Powell contends that the mug shots would allow the jury to suspect that Powell chose to associate with a convicted felon, thereby creating an impermissible `guilty by association' inference. We disagree. At most the mug shot demonstrates that Wright, not the defendant, had been previously arrested. The arrest could have been for a misdemeanor, charges may never have been filed, or charges may have been resolved short of a conviction through dismissal or acquittal. The probative value of these photographs was significant because it explained to the jury how Jones came to identify all three of the shooters. The danger of unfair prejudice was minimal, in that the mugshot was not of the defendant himself but merely of one of his codefendants and no mention of a prior arrest or conviction was made to the jury. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the mug shot of Powell's codefendant.