Opinion ID: 1367717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Admission of a Photograph of the Murder Victim While Alive

Text: The prosecution offered into evidence a photograph taken of the victim while alive. In the photograph, she was wearing a fur coat and gold jewelry. Defendant objected on the ground the photograph was irrelevant because [i]dentity is not an issue. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the photograph. (31) Although we have held that photographs of victims while alive should not be admitted if they have `no bearing on any contested issue in the case' [citation], the court has discretion to admit such photographs if relevant. [Citation.] ( People v. Cooper, supra, 53 Cal.3d 771, 821.) In the present case, the victim was engaged in an adulterous relationship with defendant's brother-in-law. Anger and jealousy on the part of defendant's sister was asserted as a motivating factor for the murder. Under these circumstances, the photograph of the victim while alive, showing she was attractive and well dressed, had some relevance. Defendant asserts the photograph of the victim taken while she was alive was unusually prejudicial in this case, because it showed the victim wearing jewelry and a fur coat, thus suggesting robbery as a motive for the murder, when in fact the victim was not prosperous and was receiving welfare. Rather than establishing prejudice, however, the photograph's depiction of Ruby Gonzales as a likely robbery victim enhanced its relevance and supported its admissibility. Regardless of the victim's economic status, her possession of valuable items of personal property provided a motive for robbery. Defendant was free to offer evidence to the contrary. In any event, the tendency of the photograph to establish the victim owned expensive furs and jewlery would have been cumulative. Inez Blanco testified she saw the victim wearing a diamond necklace valued at $6,000. It is not reasonably probable, therefore, that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached had this photograph not been admitted. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [299 P.2d 243]; see People v. Taylor (1990) 52 Cal.3d 719, 731 [276 Cal. Rptr. 391, 801 P.2d 1142]; People v. Anderson, supra, 52 Cal.3d 453, 475; People v. Frank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 718, 734 [274 Cal. Rptr. 372, 798 P.2d 1215].)