trucks backing up bad now.” “There’s one, two, three - four bodies. One head cut off. It looks like a child.” “One head’s cut off. One, two, three, four - five bodies. I don’t think you guys want to see this.” CP at 782-84. ¶18 We find this situation analogous to the admission of gruesome crime scene photographs. In considering such photographs, we have reversed the customary presumption of admissibility under ER 403 and held that they are admissible if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wn.2d 789, 806-07, 659 P.2d 488 (1983) (cautioning prosecutors to use restraint in admitting gruesome and repetitive photographs when the criminal act is amply proved by noninflammatory evidence); State v. Sargent, 40 Wn. App. 340, 348-49, 698 P.2d 598 (1985) (<HOLDING>). ¶19 Here, the gruesome nature of the crash is
recognizing trial courts discretion in weighing the allegedlyimproper prejudicial aspects of photographs of victims against the photographs probative value holding that trial court had discretion to admit relevant photographs in penalty phase holding that the issue was more appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial holding the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting several photographs of a murder victims body holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact