What is the test for an in limine motion to exclude exhibits 83 and 90 in a murder case?

(People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259.) An in limine motion may preserve an objection for appeal, but "the proponent must secure an express ruling from the court. [Citation.]" (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1171.)

As for exhibits 83 and 90, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

" ' "The admission of allegedly gruesome photographs is basically a question of relevance over which the trial court has broad discretion. [Citation.] 'A trial court's decision to admit photographs under Evidence Code section 352 will be upheld on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of such photographs clearly outweighs their probative value.' " ' [Citation.] . . . [] That the challenged photographs may not have been strictly necessary to prove the People's case does not require that we find the trial court abused its discretion in admitting them. '[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.' [Citation.] 'The fact that the photographic evidence may have been cumulative to other evidence does not render it inadmissible [citation], although the trial court should consider that fact when ruling on a motion to exclude evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 352.' [Citation.] A court's ruling admitting such photographs will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner. [Citation.]" (People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 191-192.)