Opinion ID: 1203661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Admission into Evidence of Photographs and Videotape

Text: Spencer contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence three still photographs and a videotape of the crime scene. The admission of photographs into evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bennett, 236 Va. at 471, 374 S.E.2d at 317-18; Gray, 233 Va. at 342, 356 S.E.2d at 173 (compiling cases). Likewise, the admission into evidence of a crime-scene videotape is discretionary with the trial court. Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 270-71, 257 S.E.2d 808, 816 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 972, 100 S.Ct. 1666, 64 L.Ed.2d 249 (1980). Spencer does not claim that the photographs are inaccurate. He merely asserts that the horrific nature of the photos, coupled with their redundancy when combined with the videotape, render the photos prejudicial to the extent that any probative value is clearly outweighed. Nor does Spencer claim that the videotape is inaccurate. He argues, however, that the introduction of the graphic videotape, coupled with the still photographs, was inflammatory to the point of tending to induce a guilty verdict regardless of any other evidence. The photographic evidence in the present case, as in Stamper, portrayed a scene of otherwise indescribable violence. 220 Va. at 271, 257 S.E.2d at 816. The evidence was relevant because it tended to show motive, intent, method, malice, premeditation and the atrociousness of the crimes. Gray, 233 Va. at 342-43, 356 S.E.2d at 173. Where as here, photographic evidence accurately portrays the crime scene created by an accused, the evidence is not rendered inadmissible simply because it is gruesome or shocking. Id. at 343, 356 S.E.2d at 173. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this photographic evidence.