Opinion ID: 853533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Gruesome Photographs Claim

Text: Hulfachor challenges the admission of three photographs taken by the emergency room physician. She asserts their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of the prejudice they might cause, and that they are cumulative. We review the trial court's admission of photographic evidence for an abuse of discretion. Byers v. State, 709 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind.1999). Photographs that depict a victim's injuries are generally relevant and thus admissible. Harrison v. State, 699 N.E.2d 645 (Ind.1998). The relevancy requirement also can be met if the photographs demonstrate or illustrate a witness' testimony. Id. On the other hand, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Ind. Evidence Rule 403. That photographs depict gory, revolting, or inflammatory details of the crime is not sufficient basis for reversal, unless they are without relevance to any material issue. Perigo v. State, 541 N.E.2d 936, 939 (Ind.1989). Proving the material issues cannot be done sometimes without presenting disagreeable evidence. Revolting crimes generate revolting evidence. Id. at 939-40. While the challenged photographs are indeed disagreeable, they show the nature and severity of Glaser's injuries, and they illustrate the deposition testimony of the emergency doctor. Hulfachor also claims that the photographs are cumulative of each other, (Appellant's Br. at 13), because they demonstrate the same thing, (R. at 898). The photographs are a little different, however, each showing Glaser's wounds at different angles, focusing on different parts of the injuries. It is possible that the State could have done the job with just one or two. Using three is not enough to warrant a new trial.