How have the courts dealt with the issue of admitting photographs of child abuse?

"Under Evidence Code section 352, the trial court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether the probative value of particular evidence is outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion or consumption of time. [Citation.] Where, as here, a discretionary power is statutorily vested in the trial court, its exercise of that discretion `must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124-1125.)

Defendant has not attempted to show that the trial court's thoughtful balancing of probative value and prejudice following the close of evidence was arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. (People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 1124-1125.) Admission of the photographs was not an abuse of discretion.

Defendant contends the trial court "committed prejudicial error when it allowed the prosecutor to commit numerous acts of misconduct." Although so stated, defendant does not argue "that the trial court violated its statutory duty to control the proceedings, evidence, and argument ([Pen. Code,] 1044) by failing to intervene sua sponte" in the alleged acts of prosecutorial misconduct. (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 159, fn. omitted.) We therefore view defendant's argument as a claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Defendant argues that the prosecutor appealed to the jury's sympathy, passion and emotion; made an improper appeal for jury nullification; and referred to facts not in evidence. The People respond that defendant has forfeited his claims by failing to request an admonition or a curative instruction. (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820.) The People have the better argument.

In closing argument, the prosecutor addressed the jury as follows: