2842/09 - Maryland Courts

enlarged to show the gold chain. The intent is
for identification . . . . I can=t help that it=s a
family photo, but I don=t have any other photos.
THE COURT:
First of all, I find that the photos are relevant
because there is an allegation that a gold chain
was stolen in this case. And secondly, I find
that it=s not only relevant, but the probative
value outweighs any prejudicial value. And the
prejudice that may be shown by virtue of the
fact that there are family photos, I don=t find it B
I think as you will have noticed, [defense
counsel], it=s not unduly prejudicial.
It would be unrealistic to assume that this jury
would put this matter in a vacuum in any event.
There is bound to be some family photos of some
family relationships in this case. So I find that it=s
relevant, probative, and it=s not unduly prejudicial.
Overrule the objection.
(Emphasis added).
Based on the above colloquy, it is clear that the trial court weighed the danger of unfair
prejudice of the photograph against its probative value. The State adduced evidence at trial that,
when appellant was arrested, which was only a matter of hours after the murder of Zurita, appellant
was in possession of a gold chain necklace that had been worn by Zurita on the night of the murder.
The photograph in question showed Zurita wearing the necklace with his face clearly depicted.
No other photograph showed Zurita=s face with the necklace. Thus the trial court=s determination
that the danger of unfair prejudice of the photograph did not substantially outweigh its probative
value was not plainly arbitrary, and we will not disturb this decision on appeal.
36
SENTENCE ON CONVICTION FOR
ROBBERY WITH A DANDEROUS
WEAPON VACATED; JUDGMENTS