We believe that the photographs, as well as the glasses the victim was wearing at the time of the crime, were admissible to corroborate the victim's testimony about the beating he received from defendant and his accomplice. See, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 194 N.W.2d 590 (1972); State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N.W. 785 (1939). Additionally, the photograph of the victim was admissible to corroborate the victim's testimony that he was unable to identify defendant from photographs shown him in the hospital because of his physical condition after the beating.
With respect to the denial of the change of venue motion, see, State v. Annis, 291 Minn. 552, 192 N.W.2d 419 (1971). On the issue of admissibility of the photographs, see, State v. Tinklenberg, 292 Minn. 271, 194 N.W.2d 590 (1972), and State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N.W. 785 (1939). Affirmed.
State v. Billington, 241 Minn. 418, 427, 63 N.W.2d 387, 393. State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 85, 287 N.W. 785, 786. 4. The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence that sometime prior to the killing Farrell had been convicted of the crime of "larceny against the person."
Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274, 88 N.W. 754; see, State v. Lytle, 214 Minn. 171, 7 N.W.2d 305; State v. Solum, 183 Minn. 36, 235 N.W. 390; State v. Hagen, 160 Minn. 408, 200 N.W. 480; State v. O'Connor, 154 Minn. 45, 191 N.W. 50; 6 Dunnell, Dig. Supp. § 9798. State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 41 N.W.2d 313, 15 A.L.R. 2d 1137; State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N.W. 785; State v. Barnett, 193 Minn. 336, 258 N.W. 508; 5 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 2490. State v. Wilson, 238 Minn. 447, 57 N.W.2d 412, is distinguishable from the case here.
Since one of the items of damage, and the most important one, was the loss of attractiveness, we feel that the court did not abuse its discretion in receiving the exhibit in evidence. 3 Wigmore, Evidence (3 ed.) § 792; State v. Dimler, 206 Minn. 81, 287 N.W. 785. We find no errors that require a reversal.