Opinion ID: 2276759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Photographs and Videotape During Guilt Phase (Strong's point 7)

Text: Strong contends the trial court erred during the guilt phase in admitting and repeatedly showing photographs and a videotape of Eva, Zandrea, and the scene. [8] He claims the prejudicial impact of these exhibits far outweighed their probative value and their admission encouraged the jury to disregard the facts and to convict Strong based on raw emotion. The trial court has broad discretion in the admission of photographs. State v. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d 149, 161 (Mo. banc 1998). Its decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615, 631 (Mo. banc 2001). Photographs are relevant if they show the scene of the crime, the identity of the victim, the nature and extent of the wounds, the cause of death, the condition and location of the body, or otherwise constitute proof of an element of the crime or assist the jury in understanding the testimony. State v. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d 831, 844 (Mo. banc 1998). It is generally accepted that if photographs are gruesome, it is simply because the crime itself was gruesome. Ervin, 979 S.W.2d at 161. A photograph is not rendered inadmissible simply because other evidence described what is shown in the photograph. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d at 844. Each of the photos was independently relevant and assisted the jurors in some respect to show the scene of the crime, the victims' identities, the nature and extent of the wounds, the condition and location of the bodies, or Strong's mental state at the time of the murders. The videotape contained the same content as the photographs but aided the jurors by providing a unified view of the environment in which the murders occurred. This point is denied.