Opinion ID: 2546413
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Photographs of Roland Teal

Text: The jury was not allowed to view postmortem photographs of victim Roland Teal while the witnesses were testifying, but near the end of the prosecution's presentation of guilt phase evidence, the trial court considered whether to admit four photographs. The first shows the nude body of the victim lying on the coroner's table, covered by a towel. The other three photographs portrayed close-up views of the wounds the victim suffered. Defendant objected to their admission; the trial court took the basis of the objection to be that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. (Evid.Code, ง 352.) As to the latter three, the court ruled they were basically clinical photos. They are not gruesome. They are not bloody. Moreover, [t]hey are relevant to show the nature of the wounds, the position of the ... victim in receiving the wounds, and helps illustrate the coroner's testimony. The court concluded these photographs were not more prejudicial than probative and admitted them. The trial court initially made a different ruling as to the first photograph, which showed the victim on the coroner's table. The trial court stated it saw no relevance to the photo and thus excluded it. The prosecutor argued that the photograph was relevant to an issue raised by the coroner's testimony. Specifically, it was the prosecutor's theory that the victim was shot while his arms were raised (as if to give himself up), although defendant, in his cross-examination of the coroner, raised the possibility the victim was engaging in certain body gyrations when shot, thereby explaining the particular type of wounds. The prosecutor argued the photo, showing that the victim was an overweight elderly man, was relevant to whether the victim was capable of engaging in such gyrations. The trial court agreed, reconsidered its ruling, and admitted the photograph. Defendant contends the trial court erred when it overruled his objections to the admission of these photographs. The admission of allegedly gruesome photographs is basically a question of relevance over which the trial court has broad discretion. ( People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 13-14, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 348, 939 P.2d 748.) A trial court's decision to admit photographs under Evidence Code section 352 will be upheld on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of such photographs clearly outweighs their probative value. ( People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 624, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224.) We have examined the photographs in question and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. They are not unduly bloody or gruesome and are relevant to the manner in which the victim was killed. As we have previously noted, `murder is seldom pretty, and pictures, testimony and physical evidence in such a case are always unpleasant.' ( People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 211, 155 Cal.Rptr. 657, 595 P.2d 91.) Although defendant argues the photographs were cumulative to the coroner's detailed testimony, this fact, even if true, does not demonstrate the trial court abused its broad discretion. [P]rosecutors, it must be remembered, are not obliged to prove their case with evidence solely from live witnesses; the jury is entitled to see details of the victims' bodies to determine if the evidence supports the prosecution's theory of the case. ( People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 624, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224.)