If a jury accepts that some of the challenged photographs were of limited probative value and should have been excluded by the trial court, would this be a mistake?

Even if we were to agree with defendant that some of the challenged photographs were of limited probative value and should have been excluded by the trial court, any error in this regard clearly would be harmless. (See People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1258, 232 Cal.Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115.) As detailed above, the circumstantial evidence of defendant's guilt the evidence linking him to the crimes, his motive for the killings, and his attempts, after committing the crimes, to alter and prevent testimony made the case against him very strong. The challenged photographs admitted into evidence were in a small format and, in comparison with exhibits we have seen and approved in other cases, not unduly shocking or inflammatory. Under the circumstances, it is not reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a different result had the

[15 Cal.Rptr.3d 704]

challenged photographs been excluded. (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243.)

[15 Cal.Rptr.3d 704]