Does the trial court abuse its broad scope of photographs of a murder victim?

We have examined the photographs in question and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. They are not unduly bloody or gruesome and are relevant to the manner in which the victim was killed. As we have previously noted, "`murder is seldom pretty, and pictures, testimony and physical evidence in such a case are always unpleasant.'" (People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 211, 155 Cal.Rptr. 657, 595 P.2d 91.) Although defendant argues the photographs were cumulative to the coroner's detailed testimony, this fact, even if true, does not demonstrate the trial court abused its broad discretion. "[P]rosecutors, it must be remembered, are not obliged to prove their case with evidence solely from live witnesses; the jury is entitled to see details of the victims' bodies to determine if the evidence supports the prosecution's theory of the case." (People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 624, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 51 P.3d 224.)

[27 Cal.Rptr.3d 414]

d. Pipkin's Testimony as to a Lack of Prior Robberies

[27 Cal.Rptr.3d 414]