Opinion ID: 2581358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Photographs of Victims and Their Children

Text: Defendant contends that he was prejudiced by the admission during the prosecutor's penalty phase case of photographs of murder victims Sadler and Morris, a photograph of one of murder victim Bettancourt's two teenage daughters, and a photograph of murder victim Morris's two-year-old daughter. Defendant argues that these photographs were improper victim impact evidence lacking relevance and designed to inflame the jurors' passions. Evidence of the impact a victim's death has on their family members is evidence of the specific harm caused by the crime ( Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720), and accordingly is properly admitted as a circumstance of the crime under section 190.3, factor (a). ( People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 444, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391.) Photographs of Sadler and Bettancourt taken before their deaths were introduced at the guilt phase and used by the prosecutor to elicit identifications from witnesses. Defendant did not object then, nor did he do so when the same photographs were used again at the penalty phase; therefore, defendant has not preserved any claim of error as to those photographs. At trial, defendant objected to the admission of seven photographs of one of murder victim Bettancourt's daughters, and the court limited the prosecutor to showing a single picture of each of the victim's children. In light of that ruling, defendant maintains it would have been futile for him to object to the photograph of victim Morris's young child. Without deciding whether a second objection was necessary here, we reject defendant's claim on the merits. Murder victim Bettancourt's mother testified that her son's two teenage daughters were very close to him; thereafter, a snapshot of one of them from his wallet was admitted into evidence. A photograph taken of Morris's two-year-old daughter was identified by his mother, who testified that her son's death meant that the little girl would never, ever know the love he had for her. Neither of Bettancourt's teenage daughters testified, although both were old enough to have done so. Testimony from the victims' children as to how their father's death affected them would have been proper victim impact evidence. ( People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 444-445, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391.) Instead two photographs, one of a Bettancourt daughter and one of Morris's toddler, were introduced to show the jury two children whose lives were affected when defendant murdered their fathers. The photographs were proper victim impact evidence. ( People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 564-565, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182.) Such minimal photographic evidence, coupled with the brief testimony by each grandmother, falls far short of a quantity of evidence that might deny defendant's right to due process. (See People v. Robinson (2005) 37 Cal.4th 592, 644-652, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 760, 124 P.3d 363.)