Opinion ID: 1470596
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Photographs of Mendoza and the Daughter

Text: [¶ 27] Roberts argues that the court erred in admitting, over his objection, two photographs of Mendoza and their daughter in which they are kissing and smiling. The photographs were initially shown to witnesses by the State only for identification purposes. However, after Roberts played a recording of his 911 call to the jury, the State argued that the photographs should be admitted into evidence to rebut Roberts's statements in this recording that Mendoza had threatened to kill the daughter. Roberts argues that the photographs were irrelevant to the issues at trial and were unfairly prejudicial because they were likely to elicit an improper emotional response from the jury. [¶ 28] We have previously provided that photographs are admissible if they are (1) accurate depictions; (2) relevant; and (3) if their probative value is not outweighed by any tendency toward unfair prejudice. State v. Allen, 2006 ME 21, ¶ 10, 892 A.2d 456, 459. A photograph may be unfairly prejudicial when it has an undue tendency to move the tribunal to decide on an improper basis, commonly, though not always, an emotional one. Id. ¶ 13, 892 A.2d at 460 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 29] The first two criteria are easily met. Roberts concedes that the photographs are an accurate depiction of Mendoza and their daughter. With regard to relevance, the State argues that it offered the photographs  which depict the mother and child as having a loving relationship  to rebut Roberts's claim that he believed Mendoza was going to kill their daughter. Roberts's belief on this point was relevant at trial because of his theory of the case, and accordingly we discern no error in the trial court's conclusion that the photographs tended to establish a consequential fact. See M.R. Evid. 401. [¶ 30] With respect to the third criterion, although the photographs were of such a nature as to possibly evoke an emotional response by the jury, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's conclusion that the probative value of the photographs outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. There was other evidence admitted at trial establishing the caring relationship between Mendoza and the daughter, including Destrini's testimony that Mendoza was very good to the daughter and they were happy together and a recording of the daughter upset and crying when Mendoza left her on August 14 after their visit. Because of the cumulative nature of the evidence of Mendoza and the daughter's relationship, most of which Roberts did not object to, it is unlikely that the photographs moved the jury to decide the case on an emotional basis.