Opinion ID: 1169728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admission of the defendant's photograph

Text: At trial, the State offered the photograph of the defendant used by the police during their investigation of the crime to identify the defendant. The photo was included in a photo line-up that was presented to Carnell Washington. The defendant did not object to the relevance of the photograph, but objects to the photograph itself. The photograph is a mug shot of the defendant taken at a prior arrest. The defendant argues that this presentation of him as a criminal was so prejudicial as to outweigh the probative value of the evidence. The defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted his mug shots. The defendant asserts that the trial court failed to weigh the prejudicial value against the probative value pursuant to the evidentiary rule of K.S.A. 60-445, which states: Except as in this article otherwise provided, the judge may in his or her discretion exclude evidence if he or she finds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk that its admission will unfairly and harmfully surprise a party who has not had reasonable opportunity to anticipate that such evidence would be offered. The defendant does not allege surprise with regard to the offer of the defendant's photograph. The procedural facts surrounding the photograph help to put this argument into context. During trial, the defendant objected to the photograph and offered to stipulate that it was the defendant at the car wash on the day of the shooting. In addition, the defendant objected to the use of the phrase mug shot. Noting that the State refused to accept this stipulation, the court directed the State to tell its witnesses to use the word photograph rather than mug shot. Further, when the defendant renewed his objection, the trial court ruled that if the photos were taped down so that the jury could not read what was on the back, the photos were admissible. The trial court concluded: The jury is entitled to look at that photographic array and give what weight they feel it deserves insofar as the selections made by Mr. [Carnell] Washington. Admission of demonstrative photographs lies within the broad discretion of the trial judge. In determining whether demonstrative photographs should be admitted, a trial judge must determine whether they are relevant and whether a proper foundation has been laid. State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 516, 731 P.2d 842, cert. denied 483 U.S. 1024 (1987). The trial court went out of its way to minimize any prejudicial effect that the photos might have, and it is difficult to conclude that the trial court either abused its discretion in admitting the photos of the defendant into evidence or failed to balance the photograph's prejudicial effect against its probative value.