Opinion ID: 2599880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Photographs of the Murder Victims (Lewis, Oliver)

Text: Defendants claim the trial court erred in admitting, over their objection under Evidence Code section 352, crime scene photographs that were unduly prejudicial ( People v. Ayala, supra, 24 Cal.4th 243, 282, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532, 6 P.3d 193) and cumulative. ( People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 677, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640.) They assert the error resulted in violations of the Fifth Amendment due process guaranty, the Eighth Amendment concern for a reliable penalty determination, a state-created liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment generally. Except for due process, the constitutional claims are forfeited. ( Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 435, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.) We find no error under state law. On March 1, 1993, before the penalty trial began, the prosecution sought to admit several crime scene photographs that the trial court had excluded at defendants' request from the guilt phase. Defendants timely objected to three of them, all involving Patrinella Luke. One photograph showed her lying in blood on the floor, and the other two photographs showed her fatal head wound from different angles. Defendants claimed the evidence was cumulative, irrelevant, and inflammatory. The prosecution insisted the jury was entitled to see the close range of the killing for the first time, and to assess the callousness of the act. The trial court overruled the defense objections. It decided to remove the sanitation artificially placed in the guilt phase. The prosecution has wide latitude at the penalty phase to illustrate the crime through photographs. Such evidence cannot prejudice the defendant as to guilt, and the brutal circumstances assist the jury in making its normative ( People v. Schmeck (2005) 37 Cal.4th 240, 262, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 397, 118 P.3d 451) penalty decision. ( People v. Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th 833, 872, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1; People v. Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th 543, 592-593, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.) Photographs that accurately depict the manner of death are relevant to `malice, aggravation, and penalty.' ( People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th 107, 185, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988.) No abuse of discretion occurred here. ( People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 955, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 70 P.3d 277.) We have examined the photographs. They are unpleasant. However, in evaluating defendants' moral culpability for the capital crime, the jury was entitled to have a complete picture of the brutal manner in which Patrinella Luke was killed. (See People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1036, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519 [court's discretion under Evid.Code, § 352 to exclude evidence of circumstances of capital crime is more limited at penalty phase than at guilt phase].) Defendants also maintain that the court failed to adequately articulate its reasons for introducing the photographs into evidence. But the trial court need not expressly weigh prejudice against probative value, or even state that it has done so. ( People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1200, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130.) The assertion fails.