 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mollman12/23/2003
NT AND HIS WIFE.
. Prior to trial, Mollman filed a motion in limine requesting the State be prohibited from showing the jury a photo of the decedent and his wife. Mollman argued that the photograph was irrelevant and that its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value. The trial court denied Defendant's motion. Mollman asserts the trial court abused its discretion.
. Photographs are admissible if they "accurately portray anything that a witness may describe in words" or they are "helpful in clarifying a verbal description of objects and conditions." State v. Owens, 2002 SD 42, , 643 NW2d 735, 756-757. The photographs must be relevant to a material issue. Id. (citing State v. Holland, 346 NW2d 302, 307 (SD 1984)). As long as they are relevant, photographs are not rendered inadmissible "merely because they incidentally tend to arouse passion or prejudice." Id. (additional citations omitted).
. Mollman argues that the photograph of the decedent and his wife was not relevant because he offered to stipulate to the identity of the decedent. The State counters that the defense is not entitled to stipulate the State's case away and that the State was still required to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court agreed with the State and held that the photograph was relevant to the issue of identity and that the State was entitled to show that the decedent was "imbued with a spark of life" and to "present the victim as a human being." State v. Carney, 649 NW2d 455, 463 (Minn 2002) (citing State v. Graham, 371 NW2d 204, 207 (Minn1985)).
. We review the trial court's admission of the photograph under the abuse of discretion standard. Owens, 2002 SD 42 at , 643 NW2d at 756 (additional citations omitted). In determining whether a photograph should be admitted, the trial court is to weigh the probative value of the picture against the "danger of prejudice to the [defendant] through needless arousal of the passions of the jurors." State v. Kane, 266 NW2d 552, 558 (SD 1978) (overruled on other grounds). Among the elements the State must prove is the identity of the decedent. The State chose to do so through introduction of the photograph during direct examination of the decedent's widow. We have consistently held that the State is not bound by a defendant's offer to stipulate to facts. Owens, 2002 SD 42 at , 643 NW2d at 757 (citing State v. Eagle Star, 1996 SD 143, , 558 NW2d 70, 75-76; State v. Muetze, 368 NW2d 575, 586 (SD1985)). Mollman's argument that the photograph lost its relevance based on his offer to stipulate to the decedent's identity fails.
. Furthermore, Mollman fails to show how the photograph prejudiced him. The photograph merely depicts the decedent and his wife. The jury was already aware that the decedent was married because the widow was testifying and there was nothing about the photograph that could be considered inherently prejudicial. We agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court's determination that even though the victim's personal life is not per se relevant to Defendant's negligence, the State is entitled to show the victim as a living human being. See Carney, 649 NW2d at 463. Mollman has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the picture of the decedent to be shown to the jury, nor has he shown that he was prejudiced by introduction of the picture. The trial court's decision to permit the picture to be shown is affirmed.
. 3. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL.
. Mollman was in custody during his trial because he was unable to post bond. A deputy was assigned to accompany Mollman through the proceedings and to escort him to a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|