Opinion ID: 2357828
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The childhood photographs of Richard Dunbar

Text: As noted, six members of Mr. Dunbar's family testified about his murder's enduring impact. (See ante, pt. I.B.1.a.) In the course of their testimony, the jury was shown a poster board with five photographs of Mr. Dunbar as a child and one of him as an adult. [16] (10) `Unless it invites a purely irrational response from the jury, the devastating effect of a capital crime on loved ones and the community is relevant and admissible as a circumstance of the crime under section 190.3, factor (a).' ( People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1056-1057 [47 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, 140 P.3d 775].) `The federal Constitution bars victim impact evidence only if it is so unduly prejudicial as to render the trial fundamentally unfair.' ( Id. at p. 1056, quoting Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, 825 [115 L.Ed.2d 720, 111 S.Ct. 2597].) ( Bramit, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1240.) [17] The childhood photographs of Mr. Dunbar clearly satisfied this standard. We have cautioned trial courts about admitting victim impact videotape evidence, particularly if the presentation is lengthy or underscored with stirring music. (See, e.g., People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1289 [57 Cal.Rptr.3d 543, 156 P.3d 1015] ( Prince ).) [18] However, the few childhood photographs displayed here do not raise those concerns. As the trial judge observed in overruling defendant's objection to them, I don't see those [photographs] as being anything that particularly pulls at somebody's heart strings. Instead, they simply `humanized' the victim, `as victim impact evidence is designed to do.' ( Bramit, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1241, quoting People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 797 [68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531, 171 P.3d 548].)