Opinion ID: 2545785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of In Life Photograph of Murder Victim Teddy Engilman

Text: Over defendant's objection, the trial court admitted a photograph of victim Teddy Engilman taken before her death, ruling that it was relevant to assist the jury in determining the extent of the beatings defendant had inflicted on her. Defendant argues the photograph was irrelevant and served no purpose other than to generate sympathy for the victim, and it therefore should have been excluded. The Attorney General contends this issue has not been preserved for appeal because defendant did not object at trial. We disagree; defendant's pretrial objection was sufficient to preserve the issue. ( People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 187-191, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949.) But we find no error. A photograph of a murder victim while alive is relevant at the penalty phase of a capital trial as a circumstance of the crime, because it portrays the victim as seen by the defendant before the murder. ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 688, 280 Cal. Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351.) Defendant points out that we have repeatedly cautioned about the dangers of admitting photographs of murder victims while alive. (See, e.g., People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 677, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640; People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1230, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210; People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 323, 246 Cal.Rptr. 886, 753 P.2d 1082.) In those cases, however, the photographs were admitted at the guilt phase of trial. As we recently explained, they are generally admissible when, as here, the prosecutor seeks to introduce them at the penalty phase. ( People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 400-401, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708.) Thus, here the admission of the photograph was proper. Defendant also argues admission of the photograph violated the federal Constitution because it rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. Because defendant failed to object on this ground at trial, he may not now raise this issue on appeal. In any event, we discern no fundamental unfairness from the trial court's admission of the photograph.