State v. Bocharski: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Creation of case brief) |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|court=Supreme Court of Arizona | |court=Supreme Court of Arizona | ||
|subject=Evidence | |subject=Evidence | ||
|facts=D was charged with a woman’s murder. D challenged admission of 6 gruesome photos | |facts=D was charged with a woman’s murder. D challenged admission of 6 gruesome photos | ||
|issues=*Are the photos relevant? | |issues=*Are the photos relevant? | ||
Latest revision as of 03:44, July 14, 2023
| State v. Bocharski | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | |
Facts
D was charged with a woman’s murder. D challenged admission of 6 gruesome photos
Issues
- Are the photos relevant?
- Even if relevant, did the photos introduce unfair prejudice due to their gruesomeness?
Holding
- The photos are relevant under 401/402.
- However, there is unfair prejudice because the photos have potential to generate a decision outside the facts, because the photos are gruesome.
Judgment
Affirmed.
Reasons
Court does NOT reverse; admitting the photos was harmless error because there’s enough other evidence.
Rule
Probative value is diminished if there are other ways to prove a point.
Comments
Think about how prejudicial evidence can be mitigated (e.g., black & white photos rather than color, voir dire, limiting jury instructions)
