State v. Stapley, 249 P.3d 572

Stapley was convicted of attempted murder after a jury trial.
Eight-inch by ten-inch color photos of J.E.’s injuries (exhibits 10–14) were admitted at trial over Stapley’s objections directed at gruesomeness.
Exhibits 11–13 depict gaping ax and knife injuries; exhibit 10 shows knife wounds; exhibit 14 shows knife wounds to lower torso/fingers.
The photographs were argued to be irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial; the State contended they had unusual probative value.
Stapley preserved objections only as to exhibits 11–13; he did not object to 10 and 14, and the trial court limited exposure of gruesome photos.
On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, applying a three-step test for gruesome photos and Rule 403 balancing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the photographs relevant and admissible?	Stapley: photos irrelevant to issues; redundancy since injuries could be proven by testimony.	State: photos illustrate wounds’ nature/severity and aid establish intent/serious bodily injury.	Exhibits 11–13 relevant to intent and serious bodily injury; trial court did not abuse discretion.
Are the photographs gruesome and subject to a Rule 403 balancing?	Stapley: photos are gruesome, should be excluded or given less weight.	State: though disturbing, probative value substantial for contested elements; admissible.	Even assuming gruesome, probative value outweighed unfair prejudice; admissible.
Was the evidence preservation properly handled given objections to certain exhibits?	Stapley preserved objections only to exhibits 11–13; issues with 10/14 not preserved.	State: no preserved objection to 10/14, but admissibility preserved for record.	The preserved issues were reviewed; non-preserved objections were not considered on appeal.
Did the photos’ probative value relate to disputed elements (intent to kill, serious bodily injury)?	Stapley: photos do not prove contested elements beyond testimony.	Photos corroborate location/extent of wounds and support intent/force of the attack.	Photos highly probative on intent and serious bodily injury; helped resolve contested issues.

State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66 (Utah) (gruesome photos require substantial outweighing probative value)
State v. Betha, 957 P.2d 611 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (gruesome vs. non-gruesome balancing guidance)
State v. Gulbransen, 2005 UT 7 (Utah) (photographs may be relevant even if testimonial evidence exists)
State v. Vargas, 2001 UT 5 (Utah) (gruesome photographs presumptively inadmissible unless probative value outweighs prejudice)
State v. Jiron, 882 P.2d 685 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (gruesomeness assessment factors include shock/impact beyond mere unpleasantness)
State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239 (Utah) (unfair prejudice concerns in gruesome photo admissibility)
State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 87 (Utah) (photographs may be probative when corroborating witness testimony)