CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
......Balancing Prob. Value & Prejudice
.........Defined
10 Cards On This Topic:

By implicitly balancing probative value of evidence of D's cocaine theft against its prejudicial effect, dist. court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.

Where DA must convince factfinder, beyond reasonable doubt, of charges and allegations D has not conceded, it need not sanitize its case by presenting only enough evidence to meet bare legal sufficiency.

Prejudice for purposes of EC §352 means evidence that tends to evoke an emotional bias against D with very little effect on issues, not evidence that is probative of D's guilt.

Prejudice referred to in Evid. Code §352 is evidence which tends to evoke emotional bias against party.

Evid. Code §352 prejudice analysis applies to DA as well as to D.

No error in admitting evidence that street racing was common on street where accident took place nor in admitting pre- and post-accident photos of V, now in a vegetative state.

Prejudicial error to admit argument and evidence that D returned from Thailand on United Airlines flight 842, after true facts showed UA did not have such a flight: no weighing of evidence nor discretion exercised.

Evidence not unduly prejudicial simply because it is damaging; that makes it relevant.

Term "prejudice" not synonymous with damaging.

EC §352 provides the court with ample ability to prevent esoteric ventures into the unknown.