Opinion ID: 1925493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of the Photograph of Defendant's Car

Text: The defendant maintains that the photograph of his car showing a dent and smudge mark on the passenger's side door was improperly admitted as a full exhibit. First, he asserts that the photograph was irrelevant because Malloy could not state precisely when the marks were made or otherwise tie them to the incident. Second, he argues that the photograph was improperly admitted because it was not authenticated by Senerchia  the only officer who allegedly made the mark. All relevant evidence is admissible under Rule 402 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. Rule 401 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. It is well settled law in this state that `decisions about the admissibility of evidence on relevancy grounds are left to the sound discretion of the trial justice; this Court will not disturb those decisions on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.' State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 505 (R.I.2004). Upon review of the trial justice's decision, this Court will not hold that a trial justice abused his or her discretion `as long as some grounds to support the decision appear in the record.' Id. The state's case against defendant revolves around an alleged assault in which defendant drove purposefully toward Senerchia, who pushed and kicked at the approaching vehicle. Certainly the presence of a scuff mark thought to have been left by a foot, as Malloy testified, would tend to make more probable Senerchia's version of the night's events. The photograph was authenticated by Malloy during his direct examination. Malloy testified that, immediately after Malloy, Senerchia and Rozzero subdued defendant and Senerchia and Rozzero left to drive defendant to the police station, Malloy photographed defendant's car. On the stand, Malloy identified the photograph marked for identification as the photograph he took that night. He said that the photograph was an accurate and true representation of the car on the night in question  a car defendant never denied was his. Although Malloy was not present during the alleged assault, he was present during defendant's arrest in the parking lot of Tomaselli's, the stop that defendant remembered. Directly upon defendant's departure, Malloy photographed defendant's car. The photograph was properly authenticated by Malloy. We hold, therefore, that the photograph was relevant and the authentication was sufficient. Additionally, whatever questions might have been raised as to the relevance of the photograph were effectively cured by the defendant's thorough cross-examination of Malloy.