 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hall11/18/2004
e party against whom it is offered." Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979, 1001 (Colo. 2002) (quoting People v. Dist. Court, 785 P.2d 141, 147 (Colo. 1990)).
The trial court has considerable discretion under the balancing test set forth in CRE 403, and we will not disturb its ruling on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Masters, supra. To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, a defendant must show the trial court's decision was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Masters, supra. On review, we must give the evidence the maximum probative value attributable by a reasonable fact finder and the minimum unfair prejudice reasonably to be expected. People v. Kenny, 30 P.3d 734 (Colo. App. 2000).
The balancing test set forth in CRE 403 strongly favors the admission of evidence. Masters, supra.
Here, in overruling defendant's objection to the admission of the photograph, the trial court stated: " his photograph Exhibit J depicts the car in a different posture from a different location and angle than any of the other photographs, therefore, not cumulative. Also, it appears to be referring to the sticker on the window that appears in other photographs."
We agree with the court that the condition of the vehicle was relevant. The photograph depicts the vehicle from a different angle than the other photographs and is therefore not cumulative. The sticker also appears in other photographs, which were admitted without objection. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE MARQUEZ and JUDGE KAPELKE concur.
|