Opinion ID: 1322575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Photographs Showing Prior Abuse of the Victim

Text: Holder lastly argues the trial court erred in admitting State's Exhibits 16 and 17, photographs taken of her son approximately a month before his death, because they were intended to imply her son had previously been abused. Holder contends the photographs were inadmissible evidence of prior bad acts and the State failed to prove the prior abuse by clear and convincing evidence. Holder asserts the photographs show minor injuries at best [even] if they were intentionally inflicted. State's Exhibit 16 shows a woman kneeling next to Bo, whose back is facing the camera. The woman has pulled Bo's T-shirt up to reveal faint bruising on his back. In State's Exhibit 17, the same woman is holding Bo's right arm straight out with the inside of the arm facing up. A small, triangular mark resembling a burn is visible just below the child's elbow. Both photographs bear the date June 20, 2002. Elizabeth Jane Venesky testified that she lived next door to Martucci, Holder, and Bo, and that she is the woman who appears in the two photographs. She said the photographs were taken by her husband, Ronald Venesky, on or about June 20, 2002, and Holder was present. Venesky stated when Holder came over that day with Bo, she noticed Bo had a bruise on his shoulder, a burn mark, and a busted lip. Venesky's son, who played with Bo, mentioned seeing bruises on Bo, so Venesky decided to have some photographs taken because she thought something is not right [with] this. Venesky explained, And so that's how we came to take the pictures. Because I thought, well, if something happens or we see he's being abused, at least, we'll have some kind of pictures. Venesky further testified that, around the same time the photographs were taken, Holder and Bo spent the night with her after Holder told her Martucci had kicked them out. The next day, Venesky arranged for her step-cousin to take care of Bo for a day after Holder told her she needed someone to keep him and did not want to contact her parents. Venesky stated Holder thereafter called her and was angry that photographs had been taken of her son. Venesky reminded Holder that she had been present when the photographs were made. Venesky recalled that Holder stated at one point during their conversation that she was just mad, that she smacked Bo in the mouth when he back-talked her. Robin Center, Venesky's step-cousin, testified that when Holder left Bo with her, she noticed Bo had a triangular burn mark, which looked like it was caused by the end of an iron, as well as a swollen, lacerated lip. Bo also had a large black bruise on the back of his neck, as well as purplish-looking bruises on the small of his back and some additional, lighter bruising. Center stated there's just so much that I s[aw] on him and it was really shocking. The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law. Id. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. Rule 404(b), SCRE. It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent. Id. Evidence of prior bad acts that are not the subject of a conviction must be establishing by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Smith, 300 S.C. 216, 218, 387 S.E.2d 245, 246-47 (1989). The evidence admitted `must logically relate to the crime with which the defendant has been charged.' State v. Stokes, 381 S.C. 390, ___, 673 S.E.2d 434, 441 (2009) (quoting State v. Beck, 342 S.C. 129, 135, 536 S.E.2d 679, 682-83 (2000)). The probative value of the evidence must outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice. Rule 403, SCRE. The determination of the prejudicial effect of the challenged evidence must be based on the entire record, and the result will generally turn on the facts of each case. State v. Gillian, 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876 (2007). A person is guilty of homicide by child abuse if the person... causes the death of a child under the age of eleven while committing child abuse or neglect, and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-85(A)(1) (2003). For purposes of the homicide by child abuse statute, child abuse or neglect is defined as an act or omission by any person which causes harm to the child's physical health or welfare. Id. § 16-3-85(B)(1). The statute defines harm as occurring when a person inflicts or allows to be inflicted upon the child physical injury, including injuries sustained as a result of excessive corporal punishment. Id. § 16-3-85(B)(2)(a) (emphasis added). Extreme indifference as used in the statute has been defined as a mental state akin to intent characterized by a deliberate act culminating in death. McKnight v. State, 378 S.C. 33, 48, 661 S.E.2d 354, 361 (2008) (quoting State v. Jarrell, 350 S.C. 90, 98, 564 S.E.2d 362, 367 (Ct.App.2002)). The statute makes clear that child abuse may be committed by either an act or an omission which causes harm to a child's physical health. State v. Smith, 359 S.C. 481, 492, 597 S.E.2d 888, 894 (Ct.App.2004) (emphasis in original). Additionally, harm to a child's health occurs when a person either inflicts, or allows to be inflicted physical injury upon a child. Id. (emphasis in original). In Smith, the court concluded there was evidence of homicide by child abuse where, among other things, the medical evidence indicated the injuries to the child were so severe that they were the result of child abuse that would have been readily apparent. Id. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs in this instance. Under section 16-3-85, the State was required to show Holder manifested an extreme indifference to her child's wellbeing. These photographs tend to establish Holder was aware of ongoing abuse of her child, which is directly relevant to whether her acts or omissions resulted in the death of Bo. They are thus relevant to establish elements of the offense, including extreme indifference. Further, the photographs established a pattern of continuous abuse and neglect, which made it more probable that Bo was a victim of child abuse or neglect rather than a mere accident. The State's primary theory in this case was that Holder had allowed Martucci to abuse Bo in the months prior to his death. Holder's culpability for homicide by child abuse arose from her complicity in the abuse, which culminated in the death of Bo on July 17, 2002 from severe internal injuries that had been inflicted in the day or days prior to his death. The injuries to Bo at the time these photographs were taken, including the bruising on his back and the mark on his arm, were similar to the injuries he had sustained prior to his death, as the pathologist noted extensive bruising on Bo's back and an unusual mark on his arm, among other injuries. Bo also had a lacerated mouth at the time of his death, which is similar to the split lip the witnesses testified they observed in June 2002. See, e.g., State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23, 30, 667 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2008) (Where there is a close degree of similarity between the crime charged and the prior bad act, both this Court and the Court of Appeals have held prior bad acts are admissible to demonstrate a common scheme or plan.). The photographs also corroborated other evidence that was admitted on this point without objection. Venesky and Center both testified without objection about the injuries they observed on Bo, including the bruising on his back and the burn mark, and Holder admitted that she had hit her son in the face. Thus, we find there was clear and convincing evidence of prior abuse of Bo and conclude the photographs were properly admitted by the trial court.