Opinion ID: 1801755
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of postmortem photographs of the victim

Text: Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence multiple photographs of the victim taken at the crime scene and at the autopsy. He claims the photographs were cumulative, irrelevant, and highly prejudicial, and their admission violated his right to a reliable guilt phase verdict, a fair trial, and due process of law under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution. Defendant moved in limine to exclude the People's photographic evidence on the ground that the probative value of the photographs was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. (Evid. Code, § 352.) After reviewing this evidence, the trial court concluded it was relevant and was neither unduly prejudicial nor cumulative. This court is often asked to rule on the propriety of the admission of allegedly gruesome photographs. [Citations.] At base, the applicable rule is simply one of relevance, and the trial court has broad discretion in determining such relevance. [Citation.] `[M]urder is seldom pretty, and pictures, testimony and physical evidence in such a case are always unpleasant' [citation], and we rely on our trial courts to ensure that relevant, otherwise admissible evidence is not more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, § 352). A trial court's decision to admit photographs under Evidence Code section 352 will be upheld on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of such photographs clearly outweighs their probative value. [Citation.] Finally, prosecutors, it must be remembered, are not obliged to prove their case with evidence solely from live witnesses; the jury is entitled to see details of the victims' bodies to determine if the evidence supports the prosecution's theory of the case. [Citations.] ( People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 624 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224].) To determine whether there was an abuse of discretion, we address two factors: (1) whether the photographs were relevant, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the probative value of each photograph outweighed its prejudicial effect. ( People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 211-212 [79 Cal.Rptr.3d 125, 186 P.3d 496].) Having examined all of the photographs, we find that each is relevant, and that they are not of such a nature as to overcome the jury's rationality. ( Id. at p. 212.) Exhibit 1, a photograph depicting the victim as she was found in her apartment, provides evidence demonstrating that the victim was sexually assaulted, and that the manner of the assault was similar to defendant's assault upon Christa B. This photograph also corroborates the testimony of Detective Bender and criminalist Paul Sham concerning the location of blood on and around the victim's body. Exhibit 2 includes nine photographs depicting the interior of the victim's apartment. [15] These photographs corroborate Bender's testimony that there was no sign of a struggle and no blood splatter, and constitute evidence tending to establish that the attacker may have suffered no visible injuries and left the scene with no blood on his clothing. Each photograph depicts a different aspect of the apartment, and therefore none is cumulative. The circumstance that the victim's body, covered by a blue blanket, appears in three of the photographs (2B, 2D, and 2H) does not render these photographs cumulative or unduly prejudicial. Exhibit 5 includes seven photographs of the victim's body on the medical examiner's table. Exhibits 5A and 5B are full-length photographs of the victim, taken from either side. They reflect the victim's thin build and the absence of injuries, and are relevant to establish that defendant could have overpowered the victim, and did overpower her, with little struggle. Exhibit 5C is a photograph of the victim, from the chest up, taken before her bloody top was removed and her body was cleaned. It reflects where blood flowed and also shows the abrasion identified by Dr. DiTraglia on the upper left side of her forehead. Exhibits 5D and 5E are closeup photographs of the victim's neck, taken after the wound was cleaned. The view in 5D is the front of the victim's neck, and in 5E the right side of the victim's neck. Together, these photographs document the breadth and depth of the wound. They reflect the viciousness and strength of the assault, which is relevant to prove that defendant acted with malice and sought to ensure the victim was dead. They also raise doubt with respect to defendant's claim that an alleged intoxicated third party who barely could stand or sit up in the victim's apartment could have inflicted such a wound. (See People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 434 [276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221] [photographs were relevant to show the extent of the victim's injuries and the amount of force used in the commission of the murder].) Finally, exhibits 5F and 5G are photographs of the victim's right lower eyelid and right upper eyelid, which have been pulled down and up, respectively, to expose petechial hemorrhages. These photographs demonstrate that the victim was strangled. [16] (1) Each of these photographs was probative with respect to significant issues, and none was cumulative. In addition, in light of Dr. DiTraglia's detailed description of the damage inflicted upon the victim's neck, the photographs were not so gruesome as to have impermissibly swayed the jury. ( People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 974 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171] [In light of the testimony . . . detailing all the circumstances of the crime scene and the condition of the victim, the photographs were not so gruesome as to have impermissibly swayed the jury.].) We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling. With respect to defendant's claims of constitutional error, we note that [t]he `routine application of state evidentiary law does not implicate [a] defendant's constitutional rights.' [Citation.] ( People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1010 [81 Cal.Rptr.3d 299, 189 P.3d 300] ( Hovarter ).)