Opinion ID: 1375029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Undue Prejudice

Text: We agree with defendant that some of the photographs the jurors saw must have been extremely disturbing to them. They were of children who were killed in a ghastly manner. The jury knew these grim facts in the abstract, to be sure, but the photographs made them horribly concrete. It would surprise us if the jurors were able to view them without being sickened, disgusted, or shocked. But the question before us is whether the court's ruling that the photographs could be admitted was within reason. It was. The photographs were clearly probative of the prosecution's theory that defendant killed with malice, and they corroborated other evidence of the circumstances surrounding the murders. Before returning its verdict, the jury was instructed not [to] be influenced by pity for a defendant or by prejudice against him, and not [to] be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, [or] prejudice.... We assume that the jurors followed that instruction ( People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d 612, 689, fn. 17) and considered the photographs for their evidentiary value alone. Some of the photographs of defendant's victims clearly depict them as they were found, whereas others may conceivably reflect the authorities' examining procedures. To be sure, a risk of prejudice may arise should `[p]hotographs taken during an autopsy.... depict the corpse as it is left, not by its assailant, but by the probing instruments and procedures of the medical examiner.' ( State v. Iverson (N.D. 1971) 187 N.W.2d 1, 38, quoting People v. Turner (1969) 17 Mich. App. 123, 132 [169 N.W.2d 330, 335]; see also People v. Burns (1952) 109 Cal. App.2d 524, 541 [241 P.2d 308]; People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1258 [232 Cal. Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115] (lead opn.).) In the case of autopsy photographs as with any other, however, the court enjoys broad discretion in deciding whether prejudice substantially outweighs probative value. ( People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539, 552-553 [128 Cal. Rptr. 161, 546 P.2d 665, 83 A.L.R.3d 1206].) Often their probative value can be considerable. ( People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 751 [312 P.2d 665] (lead opn.).) We find no abuse of discretion.