Opinion ID: 2385655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion of Photographic Evidence

Text: Lastly, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to admit photographs of the death scene in 1975 involving his mother. Given the theory of his defense, that his mental illness stemmed from his discovery of his mother's body in addition to the bodies of other neighbors, appellant reiterates his earlier argument that exclusion of the photographs violated his constitutional right to present a defense. It is well settled that [t]he determination [] to admit photographs as demonstrative evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion. Brown v. United States, 464 A.2d 120, 123 (D.C.1983) (citation omitted); see Faunteroy v. United States, 413 A.2d 1294, 1299 (D.C.1980); March v. United States, 362 A.2d 691, 704 (D.C.1976). The record demonstrates that the trial court carefully weighed the probative value of the photographs against their prejudicial effect and ruled that they were unnecessarily prejudicial because they were absolutely too gory. We find no abuse of discretion in this ruling. [22] Moreover, one of appellant's witnesses had described the murder scene in detail. Given this testimony, there is no merit to appellant's argument that his right to present a defense was violated. Affirmed.