Opinion ID: 1869128
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admitted Photographic Evidence

Text: In his fourth claim, Hurd argues that the trial court erred in admitting photographic evidence. At trial, Hurd objected to the State's introduction of exhibits 53 and 54, which displayed an approximate total of 10 to 20 photographs depicting the victim's body. The photos were taken both at the crime scene and during the autopsy. Hurd contends that the photos of Linnerooth's body are not relevant to the issue of the killer's identity, and that the testimony of the State's medical examiner regarding the manner of death negates the necessity of presenting the number of photographs that the State proffered. Hurd also argues that these photographs were unduly prejudicial and cumulative in violation of Minn. R. Evid. 403. The State responds that the quantity of the photos was modest, the photos were not unusually graphic, and the photos were relevant to aiding the jury's understanding of witnesses' testimony. Specifically, the State's medical examiner used the photos to explain to the jury that the victim died from being stabbed, the location of the fatal wound, and the location of a stab wound in the victim's genital area. [18] We review the admission of photographic evidence for abuse of discretion. Dunn v. State, 486 N.W.2d 428, 433 (Minn.1992). Under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Minn. R. Evid. 401. In general, relevant evidence is admissible. Minn. R. Evid. 402. But relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. . . or by considerations of . . . needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Minn. R. Evid. 403. The trial court did not make an explicit finding on the record on the probative value of each photo admitted. Hurd, however, did make an objection specifically on grounds of relevance and prejudicial effect, to which the court responded by privately reviewing each of the photos. The State ultimately introduced only some of the photos that the State possessed. We agree with the State that the trial court properly concluded that these photos helped the jury to follow the medical examiners explanation of the death as well as to understand the scene described by the witness who discovered Linnerooths body. The photographs therefore were relevant. With respect to whether the probative value was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence, we have previously determined that it was not error to admit gruesome pictures of the victim's body where the pictures have not been shown to be distorted or to inaccurately portray the subject matter. State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46, 41 N.W.2d 313, 318 (1950). In DeZeler, we noted that a horrible, revolting, and ghastly depiction was an inherent and inseparable part of the facts which were relevant to a full consideration of material issues by the jury. Id., 41 N.W.2d at 318-19. The material issues, moreover, included the nature and location of the death wound, the time of death, and the manner in which the killer attempted to conceal the body. Id., 41 N.W.2d at 318; see also State v. Morton, 701 N.W.2d 225, 228, 237 (Minn. 2005) (holding that grisly photos were relevant to show elements of first-degree and second-degree murder and admissible where medical examiner testified to cause of death and probable killing during sexual assault); Dunn, 486 N.W.2d at 433 (holding that State did not introduce excessive number of autopsy photos corroborating examiner and eyewitness testimonies, nor was the content unduly prejudicial); State v. Friend, 493 N.W.2d 540, 544 (Minn. 1992) (holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to admit graphic photos where trial court reviewed each photograph before admitting it, required an explanation as to the probative value of each questionable photograph, and explicitly balanced their probative value against their potential for creating unfair prejudice). As in all of these cases, we likewise conclude here that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs at issue. Accordingly, there is no merit to the fourth claim in Hurds petition.