Opinion ID: 2581604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Photographs of Victim While Still Alive

Text: Over defendant's objections, the court admitted into evidence three photographs of Consuelo taken at the UCLA Medical Center on November 21, 1991, four days after she sustained her fatal injuries and four days before she died. People's exhibit No. 35 depicted Consuelo lying naked and swollen on a hospital bed, her genitals exposed, covered with medical tubing and bandages. Defendant objected to its admission, arguing that the angle from which that picture was taken emphasized the genital area and was inflammatory and prejudicial. The court agreed that when first viewed, the photograph invokes a certain amount of sympathy, but found that it fairly and objectively assisted in explaining much of the testimony. Defendant's exhibit Z is a close-up view of Consuelo's anus and vagina, showing profound redness, rawness, and swelling. Defendant's exhibit AA is a close-up view of her vagina with a catheter inserted. The prosecution offered the photographs into evidence, noting a medical expert was asked about them. The defendant objected to their introduction on the ground they were inflammatory. The court received defendant's exhibits Z and AA into evidence, stating, [I]n terms of them being inflammatory, I might have agreed at the outset of the case, but I certainly don't think so now. Defendant argues the admission of these photographs violated Evidence Code section 352 in that they had no probative value and were extremely prejudicial, inflammatory, and cumulative. When a defendant makes a claim that photographs of the victim are unduly gruesome or inflammatory, their admission lies within the broad discretion of the trial court. ( People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1136, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 33 P.3d 450 ( Kipp ).) `The [trial] court's exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the probative value of the photographs clearly is outweighed by their prejudicial effect.' ( Heard, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 976, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 75 P.3d 53.) Evidence is prejudicial when it `uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual, while having only slight probative value with regard to the issues. [Citations.]' ( People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 616, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683.) `[T]rial courts should be alert to how photographs may play on a jury's emotions, especially in a capital case, [and] we rely on our trial courts to exercise their discretion wisely, both to allow the state fairly to present its case as well as to ensure that an accused is provided with a fair trial by an impartial jury.' ( People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544, 58 P.3d 391 ( Boyette ).) The central factual dispute was how Consuelo received the fatal injuries. With the exception of the radiologist, each medical professional who testified regarding her treatment on or after November 17, 1991, was asked to describe what Consuelo's genitals looked like. The jury was entitled to see for itself the condition of Consuelo's body in order to determine whether that evidence did or did not support the prosecution's theory that Consuelo was sexually abused. ( Marks, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 226, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 252, 72 P.3d 1222.) As the trial court stated, these photographs are disturbing, but they are not particularly gruesome, and their probative value far outweighed any prejudicial effect. Having reviewed the photographs, we agree with this assessment. Further, the photograph in People's exhibit No. 35 was not cumulative, as defendant argues, merely because the facts for which it was offered had been established by the testimony of the pediatrician and the forensic pathologist. ( Heard, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 976, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 75 P.3d 53.) The photograph helped to clarify the testimony of these medical professionals, much of which, the court admitted, was difficult to follow. For the first time on appeal, defendant argues the introduction of these photographs violated his rights to due process and a reliable penalty determination guaranteed by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. Assuming the claim was properly preserved on appeal ( Yeoman, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 117, 133, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186, 72 P.3d 1166), defendant's constitutional claims fail on the merits because the photographs were properly admitted.