2842/09 - Maryland Courts

ecause other photographs also showed the decedent wearing the gold chain. Finally, appellant
asserts that the prejudicial effect of the photograph could have been Amitigated, if not eliminated,@
by altering the photo to remove appellant=s niece or by relying solely on the other photographs.
Appellant concludes that the trial court was Aplainly arbitrary@ in admitting the photograph into
evidence.
In response, the State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
photograph, because it was not unduly prejudicial. The State contends that the photograph is
Ainnocuous,@ and, as the trial court noted, Aphotographs will often depict the subject of the
photograph with other family members@ when the photograph is later used for a purpose not
evident at the time it was taken.
The State further claims that the admission of the photograph was not cumulative, because
it Apresent[ed] the jury with what the other two [photographs] d[id] not: a photograph from which
the jury can identify the victim wearing the necklace.@ The State points out that the other photos
of the necklace showed the victim Afacing away from the camera,@ making his identity Aunclear.@
Finally, the State contends that, because the State bears the burden of persuasion, it is allowed to
Aoccasionally introduce evidence that is redundant.@ See Lucas v. State, 116 Md. App. 559, 573,
cert. denied, 348 Md. 206 (1997). Maryland Rule 5-403 provides that relevant evidence Amay be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time,
or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.@ In Ayala v. State, 174 Md. App. 647, this Court
set forth the general rule regarding the admission of photographs:
A[T]he general rule regarding admission of photographs is that
their prejudicial effect must not substantially outweigh their probative
34