accurately depict the crime scene and the victim, and are therefore not rendered inadmissible simply because they may be gruesome or shocking. Walker, 258 Va. at 69, 515 S.E.2d at 574 (citing Walton v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. 85, 92, 501 S.E.2d 134, 138, cert, denied, 525 U.S. 1046 (1998)). The photographs are relevant to show “motive, intent, method, malice, premeditation and the atrociousness of [the defendant’s] crimes.” Chichester v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 311, 326, 448 S.E.2d 638, 648 (1994), cert, denied, 513 U.S. 1166 (1995) (quoting Spencer, 238 Va. at 312, 384 S.E.2d at 796). Any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the admission of the photographs is outweighed by the photographs’ probative value. See Coe v. Commonwealth, 231 Va. 83, 87, 340 S.E.2d 820, 823 (1986) (<HOLDING>). On appeal, we will not disturb a trial
recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence holding that the probative value of evidence that defendant had recently been released from prison offered to show identity opportunity and motive outweighed its prejudicial effect in bank robbery prosecution holding that explicit finding that probative value of similar transactions outweighed their prejudicial impact is not required holding probative value of evidence must be balanced against any prejudicial effect holding that trial court has discretion to determine whether probative value of photo outweighs prejudicial effect