Most state court rules of evidence are exact word for word replications of the federal rules. Hence, many times, it is appropriate to look at state court decisions on the issues as well in order to understand the concepts conveyed. Absent egregious error, a court should not disturb Rule 403 weighing by the trial judge. State v. Walden, 183 Ariz. 595, 610, 905 P.2d 974, 989 (1995); State v. Miller, 186 Ariz. 314, 323, 921 P.2d 1151, 1160 (1996). There was no appeal to emotion, sympathy, or horror here. State v. Schurz, 176 Ariz. 46, 52, 859 P.2d 156, 162 (1993).
Relevant photographs may be received in evidence even though they 'also have a tendency to prejudice the jury against the person who committed the offense.' State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 287-288, 660 P.2d 1208, 1214-1215 (1983) (quoting State v. Mohr, 106 Ariz. 402, 403, 476 P.2d 857, 858 (1970)). This does not mean, however, that every relevant photograph should automatically be admitted. If a photograph 'is of a nature to incite passion or inflame the jury,' id., the court must determine whether the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the ...