Joseph Karr v. State, 03-16-00246-CR

Joseph Karr was convicted by a jury of murder (Tex. Penal Code § 19.02) and sentenced to life plus a $10,000 fine after the October 31, 2014 killing of his girlfriend, Kelly Turner, at a friend’s house in Austin.
Witnesses (Jancy Darling and Michael Hammond) testified Turner screamed, Hammond encountered Karr with blood on his shirt and a knife, heard Karr say “I killed her,” and Karr fled in Hammond’s vehicle; police later found Karr and subdued him in a field.
Karr testified in his own defense, claiming Turner attacked him with a knife, he acted in defensive fear, blacked out during the struggle, and then fled the scene for safety.
At trial the State admitted photographs (exhibits 124–128, 130–131, 133–136) showing swords, knives, axes, and Karr working in a blacksmith/metal fabrication shop; Karr objected on relevancy grounds but did not expressly raise Rule 403 unfair-prejudice arguments.
The trial court admitted the photos over objection; Karr appealed, arguing Rule 403 exclusion was required because the photos' probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of photographs under Tex. R. Evid. 403	Photos of Karr’s work with blades were irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded	State: photos impeach Karr’s testimony about his profession/experience with sharp objects; probative of credibility and not unduly prejudicial	Error not preserved: Karr objected only on relevance (Rules 401/402) and did not raise Rule 403 at trial; appellate court declines to reach merits.
Harmlessness of any erroneous admission under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b)	If admission was error it affected Karr’s substantial rights	State: any error harmless given other evidence; photos were innocuous and not relied on in closing	Even if error, admission was harmless: overwhelming evidence of guilt and photos were cumulative/low-impact.

Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for trial-court evidentiary rulings)
Blackshear v. State, 385 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate courts should not reach merits of unpreserved issues)
Douds v. State, 472 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (preservation requirements under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1)
Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (requirements for sufficiently specific trial objections)
Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (clarifying what an objection must communicate to the trial judge)
Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (definition of "substantial and injurious effect" for substantial-rights analysis)
Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (erroneous admission of photographs may be harmless error)
Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (harmless-error analysis for evidentiary rulings)
Sandoval v. State, 409 S.W.3d 259 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (factors to consider when assessing effect of erroneous evidence)
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (overwhelming evidence/cumulative nature of evidence relevant to harmlessness)