and the victim slumped on the floor behind the check-out counter; (2) a closer view of Burnett’s body sitting on the floor; (3) a small bruise on Burnett’s back where Dr. Kinnison found the bullet; (4) the entry wound in Burnett’s chest; (5) the victim’s condition upon arrival for the autopsy and his blood-stained shirt; (6) Burnett with some of his friends; and (7) Burnett sitting at a sound booth in his church. These exercise of discretion in balancing those competing considerations absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. Furthermore, the defendant’s stipulation with regard to the cause of Burnett’s death does not preempt the introduction of the photographs into evidence. See Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 253, 372 S.E.2d 759, 767-68 (1988), cert, denied, 492 U.S. 925 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the trial court did
holding that because the photograph of the victim was for identification purposes only and the victims military service was never discussed at trial even if the photograph did evoke sympathy from the jury it was not reversible error to admit it holding autopsy photograph of victim was admissible even if defendant stipulated identity of victim holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding photograph showing victim with his family photograph fell within the prosecutors latitude in showing victim and was not unduly prejudicial holding that a photograph of the hands of the murder victim tied behind her back was properly admitted because it showed the considerable pain inflicted upon the victim by the defendant