Evidence, Photographs

The admission of a photograph as evidence is within the trial court’s discretion. State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn. 1978). An appellate court may not overturn the court’s decision in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Id.

“The admission of photographs lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing that the trial court abused that discretion.” State v. Odom, 336 S.W.3d 541, 565 (Tenn. 2011) (citing State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn. 1978)). A trial court is found to have abused its discretion when it applies “an incorrect legal standard or reaches a conclusion that is ‘illogical or unreasonable and causes an injustice to the party complaining.’” State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tenn. 2006)). “[T]he modern trend is to vest more discretion in the trial judge’s rulings on admissibility.” State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 577 (Tenn. 2000).

To be admissible, all evidence, including photographs, must be relevant to an issue the jury must decide. State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 102 (Tenn. 1998). Relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 401. However, relevant evidence “may 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.” Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice has been defined as “‘[a]n undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily an emotional one.’” Banks, 564 S.W.2d at 951 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 403, Advisory Comm. Notes).

State v. Baker, No. W2021-00085-CCA-R3-CD, p. 15 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 10, 2022). 

“Generally, the admissibility of evidence rests within the trial court’s sound discretion, and the appellate court does not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless a clear abuse appears on the face of the record.” State v. Franklin, 308 S.W.3d 799, 809 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tenn. 2007)). “Before a photograph or video tape may be admitted as evidence, it must be relevant to an issue that the jury must decide; and the probative value of the photograph or video tape must outweigh any prejudicial effect that it may have upon the trier of fact.” State v. Braden, 867 S.W.2d 750, 758 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (citing State v. Aucoin, 756 S.W.2d 705, 710 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988)). “The admissibility of videotapes of the crime scene and victims has long been within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his or her ruling on admissibility will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Stacy Johnson, No. W2004-00464-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 645165 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 15, 2005) (citing State v. Ronnie Michael Cauthern, No. 02C01-9506-CC- 00164, 1996 WL 937660, at *17 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 2, 1996)); see also State v. Banks, 564 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tenn. 1978); State v. Van Tran, 864 S.W.2d 465, 477 (Tenn. 1993). A trial court is found to have abused its discretion when it applies “an incorrect legal standard or reaches a conclusion that is ‘illogical or unreasonable and causes an injustice to the party complaining.’” Lewis, 235 S.W.3d at 141 (quoting State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tenn. 2006)). “[T]he modern trend is to vest more discretion in the trial judge’s rulings on admissibility.” State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 577 (Tenn. 2000).