Is there any case law where the trial court allowed the use of photographs of a murder victim as evidence in the penalty phase of a death penalty?

The evidence was, as the prosecutor argued, relevant to intent, premeditation and malice. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these exhibits. (People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 754-755, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165, 906 P.2d 2.)

Display of the photographs during penalty phase argument was not misconduct. The jury is permitted to consider any evidence regarding the circumstances of the crime admitted at the guilt phase. ( 190.2, subd. (a).) The photographs were relevant to the appropriateness of the death penalty. (People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 959-960, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171.) Thus, contrary to appellant's claim, trial counsel's failure to object to that use of the photographs during the penalty phase does not reflect incompetence.