Opinion ID: 213531
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Photograph

Text: Roberts claims the district court erred in admitting the photograph taken in the club the evening of his arrest, again arguing the photograph was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. This argument is without merit. Defense counsel invited the testimony - 15 - regarding the photograph and explained to the court: “The relevance is to show [Roberts] was inside the club after having been frisked and there was no firearm found when he went inside the club.” (R. Vol. 3 at 394.) Roberts further argues the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and the court recognized that fact when it allowed the evidence. He relies on the following exchange: The Court: This is ridiculous. What makes you think the jurors are going to recognize this as gang signs? Defense: Your Honor, I haven’t watched as much television as [the jury has]; but from what little I’ve seen, I’m concerned about that. The Court: I’ll bet you are. (Id. at 394-95.) We do not find the court’s sarcasm constitutes recognition that counsel’s concerns of undue prejudice were warranted. In addition, the photograph’s admission was immediately followed by a limiting instruction: [The photograph] is received, Ladies and Gentlemen, for the limited purpose of demonstrating, if you believe it, and it’s up to you to decide this based on the testimony, that the Defendant was in the club on the night in question. You’re not to assume or take anything else from the photograph. (Id. at 395.) Moreover, defense counsel was not shy about later using the photograph to advance his argument. It was used during Roberts’ direct examination and again in closing argument: [W]e know from the photograph Mr. Roberts was in the club before that evening. You’ll see the photograph. It’s a framed photograph just like you get when you go to certain events. It’s not the kind of photograph you’re going to carry around in your wallet or carry around with you. It’s a photograph from what happened that night. He was wearing the same - 16 - clothes. So he was in the club. And he couldn’t have gotten in that club without somebody frisking him, without running the wand. He was in the club. If he had a firearm, he wouldn’t have gotten in. (Id. at 493.) “Generally, a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted.” United States v. Cruz-Rodriguez, 570 F.3d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 755 (2000)). If Roberts wished to identify a photograph and use it for his defense, the prosecution could certainly have the photograph admitted and shown to the jury. The photograph’s relevance is obvious and speculation as to what the jurors may garner from Roberts’ gestures does not establish unfair prejudice.