In what circumstances will the court allow a plaintiff to exclude from evidence a photograph of the accident scene?

Finally the appellants assert that the court erred in various particulars in its rulings upon the admission and exclusion of evidence. The first of these relates to the refusal of the court to admit in evidence three photographs of the body of the deceased in the automobile immediately following the accident. Their argument is that these pictures were graphic views of the 'exact details of the accident, its force and effect and as impeaching of the defendant's testimony as to the speed which he was traveling and as to the skid marks.' It is difficult to understand how such a claim may be made for these photographs. Each of the facts which plaintiffs claim that they portray is more graphically and clearly disclosed by the many other photographs which were admitted in evidence, a number of them having been taken by the [160 Cal.App.2d 677] police officers immediately following the accident. These disclosed in detail the damage to both vehicles, their position in the roadway, the skidmarks of defendant's car, outlined with chalk marks, and the area immediately surrounding the intersection. On the contrary, the pictures which were excluded show nothing except the position of the decedent's body in the automobile after it had been righted. The only legitimate purpose of the photographs would be to prove the fact of death and that it had resulted from the accident, but these facts were admitted and stipulated to. Their introduction into evidence could have served no purpose unless possibly to prejudice the jury in favor of the appellants, and the trial court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, properly refused to admit the same. People v. Burns, 1952, 109 Cal.App.2d 524, 541, 542, 241 P.2d 308, 242 P.2d 9; Ryan v. United Parcel Service, 2 Cir., 205 F.2d 362, 364.