Decided January 22, 2004 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 521 (AC 23973), is denied. Lisa J. Steele, special public defender, in support of the petition.
“Even photographs depicting gruesome scenes that may prejudice the jury are admissible, so long as, in the court's discretion, they are more probative than prejudicial.... There is no requirement in this state that a potentially inflammatory photograph be essential to the state's case in order for it to be admissible; rather, the test for determining the admissibility of the challenged evidence is relevancy and not necessity.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez, 69 Conn.App. 576, 593, 795 A.2d 597 (2002); see also State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn.App. 521, 530–31, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). We conclude, therefore, that the court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the photograph into evidence.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 529 n. 7, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). Our review of the record reveals that the defendant did not raise this claim before the trial court.
Our review of a trial court's evidentiary decisions is limited to whether the court abused its discretion. See State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 534-35, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). "Authentication is . . . a necessary preliminary to the introduction of most writings in evidence . . . .
The court's decision to admit the photographs into evidence, however, did not amount to a clear abuse of discretion. Potentially inflammatory photographs may be admitted into evidence if the court, in its discretion, determines that the probative value of the photographs outweighs any potential prejudice. State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 527, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). "[E]ven photographs depicting gruesome scenes that may prejudice the jury are admissible, so long as, in the court's discretion, they are more probative than prejudicial."
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 535, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1. Here, the defendant did not provide substantial evidence to prove either that H wrote the note or when the note was written.
We review the court's admission of this evidence to determine whether it constituted a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 534, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). The following additional facts pertain to this claim.
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Boretti v. Panacea Co., 67 Conn. App. 223, 227, 786 A.2d 1164 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 918, 791 A.2d 565 (2002); see also State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 534-35, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003). The defendant argues that the testimony regarding the shooting incident was inadmissible evidence of prior misconduct. "[A]s a general rule, evidence of prior misconduct is inadmissible to prove that a defendant is guilty of the crime of which he is accused."
" Id., § 4-3. In State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 527 (2003), the Appellate Court addressed the issue of disturbing photographic evidence, declaring that Connecticut courts have consistently held that photographic evidence is admissible where the photograph has a reasonable tendency to prove or disprove a material fact in issue or shed some light upon some material inquiry. The court also stated that there is no requirement that a potentially inflammatory photograph be essential to a case in order for it to be admissible. "[T]he test for determining the admissibility of the challenged evidence is relevancy and not necessity.