Opinion ID: 1405283
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: In Life Photograph

Text: ¶ 29 Defendant objected at trial to an enlarged photograph of the victim taken while she was alive. The admissibility of in life photographs in a murder case is a matter of first impression for this court. A majority of jurisdictions that have considered the admissibility of `in life' photographs have also upheld their admission. State v. Broberg, 342 Md. 544, 677 A.2d 602, 607 (1996) (citing jurisdictions so holding). Many of these courts have applied an analysis similar to that which we have utilized with respect to other types of photographic evidence. Id. First, the trial judge must decide if the photograph is relevant. See State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 170, 800 P.2d 1260, 1278 (1990). Evidence is relevant if it assists the jury in understanding an issue in dispute. Id. The next consideration is whether the photograph has a tendency to inflame or incite passion in the jurors. Id. If it does, then the court must balance the photograph's probative value against its prejudicial effect. Id.; see also Ariz. R. Evid. 403. ¶ 30 Relevance is the crucial first step. Karen Bohl's identity was never at issue here. The defense did not contest it. There was ample testimony and other physical evidence to establish it. Nevertheless, the state argued that because the victim was so badly beaten, [t]he jury has a right to see what she looked like before. They have a right to see what kind of damage [the defendant] did to her. The extent of Bohl's injuries, however, had been plainly demonstrated by other evidence. See People v. Stevens, 76 N.Y.2d 833, 560 N.Y.S.2d 119, 559 N.E.2d 1278, 1279 (1990) (disapproving of the use of in life photos as part of a before-and-after comparison with autopsy photos unless relevant to a material fact at issue). ¶ 31 The photo in question is part of a color snapshot taken at an unspecified time before the victim's death. In it, she is outside and her windblown hair partially obscures her face. The cropped photo was enlarged to 11 X 11 inches by a color copier. We fail to see how this exhibit provided much, if any, assistance to the jury in deciding the case. See State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 288, 660 P.2d 1208, 1215 (1983) (holding that admissible photographs must have a tendency to prove or disprove any question which is actually contested, either expressly or implicitly). ¶ 32 It can, of course, be argued that in life photos personalize the victim and help to complete the story for the jurors. See State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587, 593 (Minn.1994). The obvious danger is that such photos can also be used to generate sympathy for the victim and his or her family, thereby undermining the defendant's right to an objective determination of guilt or innocence. We do not believe that such damage occurred here, and we are unwilling to adopt an inflexible rule that in life photographs are always inadmissible in homicide cases. It is for the trial court in each instance to exercise sound discretion in balancing probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice. ¶ 33 In any event, this court will not reverse a conviction if an error is clearly harmless. See State v. Spreitz, 190 Ariz. 129, 142, 945 P.2d 1260, 1273 (1997), cert. denied, ____ U.S.____, 118 S.Ct. 1315, 140 L.Ed.2d 479 (1998). Error is harmless if we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect or contribute to the verdict. See State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588, 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993). Given the overwhelming physical evidence introduced at trial and the benign nature of the photograph itself, we conclude that this exhibit did not materially affect the outcome of the case.