Opinion ID: 1853745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Object to the Introduction of Gruesome Photographs

Text: Pooler further asserts that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the State's introduction of gruesome photographs. The postconviction trial court determined that this claim is legally insufficient because counsel raised a timely, albeit unsuccessful, objection to the admission of the photographs in question. We affirm the trial court's decision. The record conclusively shows that Salnick's performance was not deficient because he challenged the admission of the photographs by written motion when they were offered into evidence by the State. Even if counsel had failed to sufficiently object, it is clear that no prejudice resulted because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs. See Pangburn v. State, 661 So.2d 1182, 1187 (Fla.1995) ([T]he admission of photographic evidence is within the trial judge's discretion and a trial judge's ruling on this issue will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of abuse.). Each photograph depicted a different wound and none appeared particularly gory. See Rose v. State, 787 So.2d 786, 794 (Fla.2001) ([A]utopsy photographs, even when difficult to view, are admissible to the extent that they fairly and accurately establish a material fact and are not unduly prejudicial.); Czubak v. State, 570 So.2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990) (holding that photographs are admissible if they are relevant and not so shocking in nature as to defeat the value of their relevance); see also Larkins v. State, 655 So.2d 95, 98 (Fla.1995) (upholding the admission of photographs where they are relevant to explain a medical examiner's testimony, to show the manner of death, the location of wounds, and the identity of the victim).