Mr. Reed contends that these photographs had minimal probative value, which was outweighed by a risk that “the jury would become outraged and strike out at the accused defendants.” Brief of Appellant Reed at 14. After reviewing these photographs, the only thing we find outrageous is the assertion that photographs of a puncture in a desk blotter could incite, or even excite, a jury. The photographs merely portray a desk and the area surrounding the desk. Upon close inspection, a hole is visible in the desk blotter. These photographs are not nearly as graphic and prone to inciting a jury as other photographs this court has held are not unduly prejudicial. See, e.g., United States v. Shoemaker, 542 F.2d 561, 564 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1004, 97 S.Ct. 537, 50 L.Ed.2d 616 (1976) (<HOLDING>). The admission of the photographs in this case
holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available holding the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting several photographs of a murder victims body holding that admission of graphic photographs of murder victim was not abuse of discretion under rule 403 holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion recognizing trial courts discretion in weighing the allegedlyimproper prejudicial aspects of photographs of victims against the photographs probative value