Opinion ID: 1356054
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Photographs and Bloodstained Physical Evidence

Text: Defendant objected to the admission of photographs of the victim and crime scene as unduly prejudicial. The court sustained the objection under Evidence Code section 352 to photographs of the victim while alive. The court admitted some autopsy photographs of the victim and excluded others. As to the photographs it excluded, the court stated it was not convinced that the probative value of these photos would outweigh any prejudicial quality. In discussing another photograph, the court stated its general disposition in pictures of the scene is, since it's totally impossible at this stage of the proceedings to tell exactly what's going to be important to any juror in assessing the information that's presented, and knowing what points are going to be critical and not critical, that anything that reflects any of the physical arrangement of anything that was discovered at the location of the discovery of the body is normally going to be admissible.... That photograph was later withdrawn, but the court overruled objections to other crime scene photographs. It also overruled objections to photographs of the body in the bloodstained clothing, stating that the jury may derive some type of significance from the location and quantity of blood that is apparent in these photographs. [¶] At this point, I'm not prepared to say that the [prejudice] outweighs the probative value. Over objection, the court also admitted bloodstained physical evidence from the crime scene, including the victim's clothes, the air pressure gauge, and some leaves and debris. Defendant contends the court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs and physical exhibits. The admission of photographs ... lies within the broad discretion of the trial court when a claim is made that they are unduly gruesome or inflammatory. ( People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 133, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) Here, the trial court did not abuse but carefully exercised its discretion. Moreover, the record clearly shows that it weighed the probative value of the evidence against any prejudicial effect throughout the trial. ( Id. at pp. 135-136, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) Citing People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 36 Cal.Rptr. 620, 388 P.2d 892, defendant challenges what he calls the court's blanket ruling admitting all photographs of the crime scene. In Ford the trial court admitted anything it considered material, with no indication it even considered the question of prejudice. ( Id. at p. 801, 36 Cal.Rptr. 620, 388 P.2d 892.) The court here clearly understood its duty to consider prejudice. It did state its general disposition that crime scene photographs would normally be admissible. The statement was appropriate in this case. Two eyewitnesses to the events at the crime scene testified: Edwards and defendant. The two gave detailed and sharply conflicting accounts of what occurred. The trial court correctly realized that physical evidence and photographs might be critical to the jury's evaluation of the conflicting accounts. Under the circumstances, the court could reasonably find that the more assistance the jury received, the better. The fact that the exhibits involved blood was due to the crime, not the court's rulings. As we have often noted, `murder is seldom pretty, and pictures, testimony and physical evidence in such a case are always unpleasant....' ( People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 385, 63 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708, quoting People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 211, 155 Cal. Rptr. 657, 595 P.2d 91.) As a rule, the prosecution in a criminal case involving charges of murder or other violent crimes is entitled to present evidence of the circumstances attending them even if it is grim. `Service on a murder trial jury is not entertainment; such duty is serious and onerous; by serving, the jurors are executing a primary and necessary duty as citizens. Often the details of evidence are unpleasant, but adult finders of fact must face this duty calmly and undismayed.' ( People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 675, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640, quoting People v. Campbell (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 38, 43, 43 Cal.Rptr. 237.) Defendant also complains that, before some of these rulings, the court did not view a videotape of the crime scene that he claims would have obviated the necessity of photographs. However, a court could reasonably conclude that a videotape might supplement but could not replace still photographs and physical exhibits. We find no error.