Whats the best way to try an assault case w/o the victim? I have the investigating officer and pictures of the victims injuries. Are there any confrontation issues or hearsay issues that may be tuff to overcome?

You should review this recent post:

https://tdcaa.infopop.net/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=19310291&p=1

The officers can testify to what they observed that evening and to the authenticity of what the pictures show. (See predicate questions manual)

Add in any EMS response team observations. Consider any statements made to the officers by the victim or to the Paramedics by the victim. Do they qualify under the excited utterance exception? Make sure you understand the factors that make an utterance 'excited'. Remember that time is a factor but not the sole indicator of the person's mental state.

Consider the 911 tape. Have you listened to it yet? We once had a tape of the entire fight. The Defendant slapped the victim, who lost control of the cordless phone. While it did skitter across the floor, it didn't disconnect. We could clearly her him threaten her to get up and clean herself up 'real good' since 'the damn cops were on the way'.

What neighbors have heard them fighting before? While it may not be admissible initially, they can make effective rebuttal witnesses. Especially if the victim testifies for the defendant.

The victim's best friend often will take the stand if you use a subpoena and play the bad guy. The best friend is dying to help the victim get out of the circumstances but doesn't want to 'betray' the confidence of the victim. If the best friend can 'blame' you for 'forcing the testimony, the best friend can say what all needs to be said because you used the subpoena. A great portion of the statements made by the victim to the best friend can qualify under Excited Utterance if you carefully lay the foundations.

Also carefully voir dire on the issue of not hearing from the victim. Get the panel talking about what reasons they might consider in not testifying. Expecially if the 'breadwinner' is on trial. This is particularly tricky, but can be done if you're crafty about it.

Of course, if the victim testifies for the defendant and the defendant doesn't take the stand, be sure not to do the following, something I saw as an intern back in 2000:

A woman took the stand to testify that her husband hadn't actually hit her in the face. He was trying to take the iron away from her while she tried to hit him with the iron. The prosecutor held up a picture taken that evening of the iron, gently resting on the ironing board with a little pile of clothes nearby. During closing, the prosecutor accused the defendant of 'hiding behind the victim's skirt'. (Oops. While the objection to the comment directed at the defendant's 5th amendments choice was sustained, the motion for mistrial was denied.)

Until Crawford is resolved in the context of excited utterance and family violence, I say keep on keeping on. There is no clear law suggesting that the statements made while under the duress or continuing stress are no longer admissible, and the accompanying fleet of case law suggests otherwise.