ONCALL
...Evidence
......Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
27 Cards On This Topic:

Gang-related evidence which was either cumulative of other admissible evidence, or not relevant to proving the substantive crimes, improperly admitted.

No abuse of discretion in excluding P's instructor's testimony on his teaching of asbestos dangers where he warned students about dust, not asbestos.

No need to conduct EC §352 balancing before jury instruction on propensity where court analyzed the uncharged and charged acts under section 352 before finding them admissible at pretrial hearing.

Any error in excluding evidence to impeach O's testimony about a 3d photo lineup was harmless beyond reasonable doubt given the other evidence of D's crimes, and Detective not being a prosecution witness.

Court well within its discretion to find the probative value of EC §1109 evidence — admitted through documentary evidence rather than more time consuming live witness testimony — was ••not•• substantially outweighed by possible prejudice.

Photos of Vs' dismemberment properly entered as strong evidence of D's consciousness of guilt, the seriousness of his crimes, manner of death and disposal of Vs' bodies.

Screenshots from a music video showing D with a known gang member, displaying a gang symbol, and holding up a blue bandana properly admitted; new EC §352.2 does not apply retroactively.

Prejudicial error to admit rap video where court didn't comply with the new requirements of EC §352.2, which addresses problem of racial stereotypes and bias in criminal trials.

Evidence couple divorced to protect their assets was relevant, but evidence they divorced because of D's inappropriate relationship with woman was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.

Court properly limited evidence in child sex abuse case of D's friendship with school principal, and evidence re D's internet porn site bookmarks referencing "teen" and/or "boy."

Trial court did not err when it admitted evidence of post-murder internet searches on D's brother's Facebook account.

Sexually graphic material is admissible if it is relevant to the charged offense.

Third party culpability evidence requires a foundation linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.

Undue prejudice for Evid. Code §352 discussed.

The prejudice that Evid. Code §352 is designed to avoid is not the damage that flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.

Admissible third party culpability evidence points to the culpability of a specific third party, not the possibility some unidentified third party could have committed the crime.

Evidence that another had motive or opportunity to commit the crime, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant’s guilt.

Failure to object to highly inflammatory testimony regarding prior crimes rises to the level of ineffective representation of counsel.

D's refusal to participate in lineup properly admitted as consciousness of guilt; probative value outweighed prejudice.

While a jury must be shielded from depictions that sensationalize an alleged crime, it cannot be shielded from an accurate depiction of the charged crimes.

Factors the law requires the trial court to consider when weighing the prejudicial nature of evidence under section 352.

D failed to demonstrate the cumulative effect of uncharged misconduct evidence was unduly prejudicial.

Evidence is not prejudicial, as that term is used in a section 352 context, merely because it undermines the opponent’s position or shores up that of the proponent.

Third party culpability evidence is admissible if there is direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.

Prejudicial is not synonymous with damaging; because gang evidence is highly inflammatory trial courts should carefully scrutinize it before admitting it.

Where there was no evidence D actually committed a prior act, admitting evidence of it is unduly prejudicial.

D properly denied right to cross-examine V of abuse on U visa program.