Opinion ID: 46696
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of crime scene photographs

Text: Anderson next argues that the trial court’s admission of certain gruesome crime scene photographs constituted a violation of due process and requires reversal of his conviction. In general, state law matters are not proper grounds for habeas corpus relief. “[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions. In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (internal quotation omitted). Only if the admission was so prejudicial as to offend due process may the federal courts consider it. See id. In evaluating the constitutionality of such evidence, this court has held that where the graphic crime scene photographs “serve[] to illustrate and make more understandable the officers’ testimony which described the [scene] and its condition, and the location and condition of the deceased’s body and the nature and extent of the injuries to the deceased,” they do not offend due process. Woods v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 1017, 1039 (5th Cir. 1996). The state habeas court found that these photographs were “visual depictions of the oral testimony of investigators and firemen.” The photographs are disturbing and bloody depictions of the victims in a burned house. In order to meet the threshold of a constitutional violation by the admission of this evidence, Anderson must show that the evidence was “so unduly prejudicial that it render[ed] the trial fundamentally unfair.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825 (1991). We need not decide this issue because “[t]he erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence will justify habeas relief only if the admission was a crucial, highly significant factor in the defendant's conviction.” Neal v. Cain, 141 F.3d 207, 214 -6- (5th Cir. 1998). Here, even assuming it was error to admit this evidence, the admission was not a crucial, highly significant factor in Anderson’s conviction. The other evidence against Anderson was overwhelming, including Anderson’s confession to his sister, his semen found inside of Bertha Cobb’s body, his possession of the Cobbs’ stolen property, and his having been seen driving away from the Cobbs’ house. The state habeas court did not unreasonably interpret federal law in denying this ground for relief. We reject it as well.