Opinion ID: 2586281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Errors in Admitting Crime Scene and Autopsy Photographs

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it admitted crime scene and autopsy photographs, and in so doing violated his constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process of law, and a reliable sentence. Having viewed the photographs, and for the reasons discussed below, we conclude the court neither abused its discretion nor violated defendant's constitutional rights in admitting the photographs. Alvarado filed in limine motions, in which defendant joined, to exclude crime scene and victim autopsy photographs as irrelevant, cumulative, and more prejudicial than probative. At a pretrial hearing, the trial court examined the photographs, and admitted some while excluding others. Defendant apparently challenges all of the photographs admitted over defense objection, and claims they were not relevant or, in the alternative, that they were cumulative and inflammatory. (Evid.Code, ง 352.) In determining whether there was an abuse of discretion, we address two factors: (1) whether the photographs were relevant under Evidence Code section 210, and (2) if they were relevant, whether the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 in finding that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission would create a substantial danger of undue prejudice. ( People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1166, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759, 117 P.3d 476.) Defendant presents no credible argument that the photographs were irrelevant. The photos were clearly relevant to the determination of many disputed facts in this case including how the victims were killed and what happened prior to the killings. (Evid.Code, ง 210.) Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of each photograph was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. `The admission of photographs of a victim lies within the broad discretion of the trial court when a claim is made that they are unduly gruesome or inflammatory. [Citations.] The 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. [Citations.]' ( People v. Ramirez (2006) 39 Cal.4th 398, 453-454, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 677, 139 P.3d 64, quoting Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th 83 at pp. 133-134, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) We have examined the photographs and conclude they are not of such a nature as to overcome the jury's rationality. ( People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 625, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224.) The trial court did not err in admitting the challenged photographs of the victims, nor did their admission violate defendant's constitutional rights.