CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Relevance
......Demonstrative Evidence
.........Photographic/Video Evidence
............Photos: Crime Scene; Victim; Inflam.
 54 Cards On This Topic:
  • Analysis of admissibility of photo or film based upon inflammatory nature of evidence is Evid. Code §352 argument.
  • D's counsel's concession in opening stmt that D shot V did not make crime scene and autopsy photos irrelevant as counsel's stmts were not evidence, D did not admit the shooting and photos were relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting 5 pre-autopsy photos showing burns on V's body and extensive swelling and disfigurement of her face where relevant to theories of felony murder in commission of mayhem, and torture murder.
  • By showing physical details of Vs' body parts tended to support a connection between D and the murders, body part photos relevant to ultimate determination of guilt.
  • While photos depicting injuries to murdered child's genitalia unpleasant, they could not be accurately described as gruesome and certainly would not have invoked the kind of prejudicial effect with which EC 352 concerned.
  • Death scene and autopsy photos properly entered where strongly probative to show condition of V's body when found and the injuries V had suffered during his torture and burning.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting photo of murder V on floor where it was relevant and more probative than prejudicial.
  • Court acted within its discretion in admitting crime scene photo as illustrating where Ws placed gunman despite minor discrepancies in lighting and placement for which photo not offered.
  • Photos of child V's body and injuries while still alive properly admitted where doctors testified re injuries, jury entitled to see them and determine sexual abuse for itself and photos helped clarify medical testimony.
  • Bloody, graphic crime scene and autopsy photos properly admitted at penalty phase as they showed real life consequences of crimes and pointedly made clear circs. of offenses, the only aggravating factor relied on.
  • No error in admitting autopsy photos of V's dissected neck and anus, all showing pre-death injuries supporting intent to kill and premeditation and weakening inference of rash killing.
  • Photo of gunshot victim on a gurney corroborated his testimony D tried to kill him, tending to show D did so because he feared he would tell police D killed Vs.
  • Photo showing V's wounds and near-decapitation properly admitted, graphically undermining D's defense that he did not intend any killing and did not act with malice or premeditation.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting 9 of 181 slides showing murder Vs' autopsies and crime scene where they depicted key aspects of evidence in contention at trial.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting 9 post-fire photos which showed numerous burns on parts of V's body, and were obviously relevant to show condition of body as it related to intent to inflict extreme pain.
  • Photos of V's body relevant and not unduly prejudicial where they had strong tendency to prove brutality and other circs of murder and mirrored graphic and shocking nature of D's crimes.
  • Crime scene videotape and photos of Vs' bodies relevant to corroborate and illustrate testimony of Os, autopsy surgeon and to establish 2 murders occurred; exhibits neither cumulative nor inadmissible under EC 352.
  • Though crime scene/autopsy photos unpleasant, most were unexceptional and had probative value re contested issues such as D's use of gun, state of mind, premeditation, and motive—no abuse of EC 352 discretion.
  • Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting victim photographs.
  • Trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting photos of crime scenes, murder victims and surgery on brain-damaged victim.
  • No error in admitting photos of murder scene and 11-yr. old V's body where relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
  • Court didn't abuse its discretion in admitting videotape showing V's mutilated groin where not unduly gruesome or bloody, nor in admitting audio portion with laughter in background where laughter brief and wouldn't prejudice jury.
  • Colorful, graphic testimony of pathologist properly admitted where probative value of high (cause and manner of death) and potential for prejudice low (jury already aware from Ws that murder was very bloody).
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting graphic photos and videotape of V's body in situ and at coroner's.
  • Autopsy photos of V properly admitted as relevant to DA’s 2-beating theory and to establish fact of murder where probative value outweighed prejudicial effect.
  • Photo of V's bathroom with blood and teddy bear relevant and did not require sanitization; photo of body where found relevant to criminal intent re murder and forcible sodomy.
  • Although murder V's photos had no bearing on disputed question of D's mental state, absence of defense challenge to particular aspects of DA's case or its Ws doesn't render photos irrelevant.
  • Photos of crime scene living room relevant to support DA theory D knew where weapon was in room, and room arranged so W could overhear conversation re V's money from drug sale.
  • Photos of bodies and crime scene relevant to DA's theory that killings were premeditated or perpetrated during robbery, showed placement of fatal wounds, and supported DA's murder theory.
  • No error in admitting V’s autopsy photos where not unusually gruesome; taken in clinical setting w/wounds cleaned-up and not showing V’s face.
  • Court did not abuse discretion in admitting autopsy photos where photos not cumulative of those taken before death but showed more detail and different parts of body.
  • No error in admitting death scene photos and V's I.D. card with photo and blood stain on it.
  • Photos of V's body relevant on issues of time, place of death, place where body left; gruesomeness mitigated by telling jury much of damage to body done by wild animals.
  • At penalty phase, court did not abuse, but rather carefully exercised, its discretion in admitting some victim photos and excluding others.
  • Photos of crime scene and autopsies relevant to DA's theory that D had intent to kill both victims, and to refute defense theory that he lacked such intent.
  • Photo of Vs handcuffed on floor at murder scene relevant in felony-murder case within broad meaning of Evid. Code §210.
  • Photos of V at crime scene relevant to circumstances of crime and D's intent, which he put in issue by denying he planned to kill when contemplating robbery.
  • DA-ordered videotape of crime area properly admitted to show height and location of walls and to impeach.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting post mortem photos of V, though gruesome, as they had considerable probative value in refuting D's exculpatory version of murder.
  • Photo of murder V while alive relevant to prove W could identify V as person she was talking about; W's initial stumble on V's name showed importance of using photo to ensure accuracy.
  • Photos of crime scenes and Vs properly admitted; tended to prove mental state and physical act elements of crimes charged without being gratuitously inflammatory.
  • Post-mortem photos of Vs properly admitted as probative of express malice, intent, deliberation and premeditation.
  • Postmortem photos of Vs relevant to aggravation of crimes and appropriate penalty, serving to clarify testimony of medical examiner and others who found and examined bodies.
  • Graphic photos of Vs' bodies and autopsy slides plainly relevant to theories of premeditation, deliberation and murder during rape.
  • Photos of murder victim properly admitted to support prosecution theories that V was shot while asleep and robbed; not unduly gruesome or cumulative.
  • Generally, photo showing manner V wounded relevant to malice, aggravation and penalty.
  • Crime scene photos in premeditated murder-rape case relevant to show placement of wounds, sexual position; witnesses, "antiseptic" stipulation no substitute.
  • Graphic videotape of V's body, bound & gagged with pillow over head, submerged in bathtub, relevant to D's malice and intent to kill.
  • Court did not err in admitting photos of crime scene, victim while alive and autopsy photos at felony murder trial.
  • Jurors often as experienced as judges and lawyers are in realities of life; photos and film of crime scene, unless extraordinarily inflammatory, should be shown to jury for probative value.
  • Test for admissibility at trial of photos of murder V is relevance, not necessity.
  • Graphic, unpleasant photos of murder V illustrate force required to bind and gag V, and so were relevant on the issue of how many persons participated in killing.
  • Cases discussing photographic victim and crime scene evidence.
  • Admissibility of victim impact evidence.


    •