Opinion ID: 1386274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Motions to Exclude Photographic Evidence

Text: Outside the presence of the jury, defendant made a motion to exclude certain photographs, some showing Marcie D. in life not long before the crimes, the others revealing defendant himself shortly thereafter. He made a separate motion to exclude certain photographs and slides of Marcie in death, as she appeared at the crime scene and during autopsy. In support of each, he claimed that the challenged evidence was not relevant under Evidence Code section 210 and, in any event, was excludable as unduly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352. The People presented opposition, denying defendant's claims. The trial court conducted a hearing on the photographs of Marcie in life and defendant himself. It reviewed the challenged evidence. Finding relevance and no undue prejudice, it denied the motion, ruled the photographs admissible, and subsequently received the items into evidence. The trial court later conducted a hearing on the photographs and slides of Marcie in death. Here too it reviewed the challenged evidence. Although it apparently found all the items relevant, it found some unduly prejudicial. It granted the motion as to the items it found unduly prejudicial and ruled them inadmissible. Otherwise, it denied the motion, ruled the other items admissible, and subsequently received them into evidence. Defendant contends that the trial court's rulings were erroneous. (20) The appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion. [Each of] [t]he ruling[s] comprises determinations as to relevance and undue prejudice. The former is reviewed under that standard. So is the latter. ( People v. Benson, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 786, citation omitted.) (21) As to the photographs and slides of Marcie in death  which we have ourselves reviewed  we discern no error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found the evidence relevant. Because one of the theories on which the prosecution tried the case and on which the jury was instructed was premeditated murder, malice was material and the photographs [and slides] were relevant to that issue. ( People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584, 594 [238 Cal. Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350].) Contrary to defendant's argument, we think it plain that these items had at least some tendency to prove malice. Neither did the trial court abuse its discretion when it found the evidence not unduly prejudicial. As stated, the photographs and slides were relevant. Although unpleasant, they were not gruesome. The court could reasonably have concluded that their prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh their probative value. (22) As to the photographs of Marcie in life and defendant himself  which we have also reviewed  we arrive at the same result. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found the evidence relevant. At the time of the ruling, the People intended to  and subsequently did  call a number of witnesses to give testimony bearing directly on identity and indirectly on intent to kill. They intended to  and did  use the photographs, at least in part, to support the witnesses' credibility. The testimony would  and did  link defendant and Marcie. The former had changed in appearance since the time of the crimes. The latter, of course, was dead. Obviously, identity and intent to kill were material. So was the credibility of the witnesses testifying thereon. The items in question had at least some tendency to prove those issues. Defendant argues that in his opening statement (which preceded both the receipt of any evidence and also the ruling in question) counsel conceded identity and thereby removed the issue from dispute. The concession, however, was ineffective. Neither did the trial court abuse its discretion when it found the evidence not unduly prejudicial. As stated, the photographs were relevant. Moreover, they threatened no unfair detriment to defendant. The court could reasonably have concluded that their prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh their probative value. [11]