and uncomfortable medical procedures the victim had to endure after reporting the molestation. It explained that the child would not have lied about the incident and thus subjected herself to such an invasive examination. However, as the defendant pointed out, it is unlikely that a seven-year-old child would have known about this consequence of reporting the incident. We thus do not agree that the photograph was relevant to refute the defendant’s theory that the victim was untruthful about the incident. We conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the photograph. The photograph had minimal probative value, and its potential for offending the jury’s sensibilities and evoking sympathy for the victim was substantial. See Saxon v. State, 225 So.2d 925, 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (<HOLDING>). Because we cannot say beyond a reasonable
holding that where photographs are irrelevant and their only purpose for admission is to influence and prejudice the jury it is eiror to admit them holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice recognizing district courts power to admit evidence for a limited purpose holding that it is not holding that trial court had discretion to admit relevant photographs in penalty phase