CRE 1001

History

(Federal Rule Identical.) Cross references: For the uniform law on photographic records, see article 26 of title 13, C.R.S. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Admissibility of Imaging Systems’’, see 25 Colo. Law. 61 (Sep- tember 1996). Accurate transcriptions of sound record- ings are admissible to assist the jury in follow- ing the recordings while they are played. People v. Gable, 647 P.2d 246 (Colo. App. 1982). Ordinarily, photographs are admissible to depict graphically anything a witness may de- scribe in words, provided that the prejudicial effect of the photographs does not far outweigh their probative value. People v. Roark, 643 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1982). Photographs may be introduced to show any matter which a witness could describe in words, including the appearance of the victim. People v. Mattas, 645 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1982). Trial court has broad discretion in deter- mining the admissibility of photographs. People v. Crespin, 631 P.2d 1144 (Colo. App. 1981). Court’s ruling not disturbed, absent abuse. Unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of photographs into evidence will not be disturbed on review. People in Interest of R.G., 630 P.2d 89 (Colo. App. 1981). Trial judge to weigh inflammatory effect of photographs against value. When photographs are determined to have probative value, the trial judge’s task is to determine whether their po- tential inflammatory effect far outweighs that value. The trial judge’s determination will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of dis- cretion. People v. Dillon, 633 P.2d 504 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Loscutoff, 661 P.2d 274 (Colo. 1983). The admissibility of photographs into evi- dence in a homicide prosecution is a matter within the discretion of a trial judge, who must weigh the probative value against the potential inflammatory effect on the jury. People in Inter- est of R.G., 630 P.2d 89 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Dillon, 633 P.2d 504 (Colo. App. 1981). It is within the trial court’s discretion to de- cide whether photographs are unnecessarily gruesome or inflammatory, and the court’s de- cision will be reversed only upon abuse of that discretion. People v. Mattas, 645 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1982). Photographs are not inadmissible merely because they reveal shocking details of a crime. People in Interest of R.G., 630 P.2d 89 (Colo. App. 1981). Cumulative effect of photographs held not to incite the jurors to passion or prejudice. People v. Scherrer, 670 P.2d 18 (Colo. App. 1983). Photocopies constitute duplicates. Fasso v. Straten, 640 P.2d 272 (Colo. App. 1982). Carbon copies are duplicate originals. Equico Lessors, Inc. v. Tak’s Automotive Serv., 680 P.2d 854 (Colo. App. 1984). Photographs may be introduced which graphically portray the scene of the crime, appearance of the victim, and other facts which are competent for a witness to de- scribe in words. In determining which photo- graphs should be admitted, the trial court must exercise its discretion and weight the probative value of the evidence against its inflammatory effect. People v. Zekany, 833 P.2d 774 (Colo. App. 1991). Applied in People v. Weese, 753 P.2d 778 (Colo. App. 1987).