door. Cf. Rogers, 991 S.W.2d at 266 (it is appropriate that jurors make value judgments based on the evidence that they receive); Herasimchuk at 789-90. The second Reese factor also weighs in favor of admissibility under rule 403 which further distinguishes this case from Reese. I would decide that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to admit at the punishment phase of appellant’s noncapital murder trial one autopsy photograph of the murdered victim’s twenty-eight week old unborn child. I respectfully dissent. APPENDIX This Appendix contains the following: Herasimchuk, The Relevancy Revolution in Criminal Law: A Practical Tour through the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence, 20 St. Mary’s L.J. 737, 782-94 (1989). 1 . Reese v. State, 33 S.W.3d 238, 240-44 (Tex.Cr.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The record reflects that, during closing
holding the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a question to prospective jurors on their feelings against recommending probation as punishment in a murder case holding that there is no eighth of fourteenth amendment rights to present alibi evidence at punishment phase of capital murder trial holding the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting several photographs of a murder victims body holding that trial court had discretion to admit relevant photographs in penalty phase holding that trial court abused its discretion to admit at the punishment phase of the defendants capital murder trial a photograph of the murder victim and her unborn child lying in a casket