CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
......Discretion of Court
.........In General
 29 Cards On This Topic:
  • No abuse to exclude interview segment with experimental demo of things dropping from accomplice's pocket during robbery, where, given the dissimilarities between experiment and crime scene circs, it was well w/in court's discretion.
  • No abuse of discretion in allowing 2d W's rebuttal testimony where it fortified part of DA's case that was impeached by defense evidence.
  • The court's exclusion of minor or subsidiary points did not amount to abuse of discretion, nor did exclusion of prison expert's views on death penalty, which were irrelevant to mitigation factors.
  • No error in trial court's allowing evidence of name of gang to which D belonged ["211 187 Hard Way Gangster Crips"] and its formation date.
  • No error in admitting D's fingerprints on Covina P.D. fingerprint card taken a few days before the murders where unlikely jury speculated as to how the P.D. obtained his prints and evidence relevant.
  • As jury already knew V's body never found, testimony that witness said it was useless for V's father to look for it did not unduly prejudice D and any error in admitting statement harmless.
  • Admitting W's mentioning that D or friend talked of bloody blue blanket would have been harmless error as it was brief and friend had testified that D said he covered V's body with a blanket after he shot her.
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence where it was relevant to identity and motive and of significant probative value.
  • Court within its discretion in disallowing evidence that toxicology report showed marijuana in V's system.
  • Harmless error to limit D's questioning of mother about threats D and family received, which would have corroborated D's testimony; inflating other garden-variety evidentiary questions into constitutional ones was unpersuasive.
  • Trial ct. did not err in not ruling on admissibility of D's priors and in suggesting they might be admissible if D offered certain witness testimony.
  • No error in denying defense motion to exclude evidence of its expert's participation in testing done by DA's expert, and no violation of attorney-client privilege or D's constitutional rights.
  • No reversal for erroneous exclusion of evidence where counsel did not offer to show ••what•• material impeachment witness' husband might provide.
  • Trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting D’s gang-related tattoos, and in permitting O’s expert testimony that "187" tattoo signified Pen. Code section proscribing murder.
  • D’s proffered witness bias and credibility evidence properly excluded under Evid. Code §352.
  • Finding DA had right to "show what D did," and "what happened," court implicitly accepted that evidence relevant to prove D's state of mind; no express stmts re balancing process req'd.
  • Failure to object on hearsay grounds to W's stmts about D's desire to get rich w/out working forfeits argument on appeal; stmts relevant to motive for robbery and his role as perp.
  • Evid. Code §352 allows court to weigh probative value of evidence against its danger of prejudice.
  • No abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of a prior complaint of sexual abuse by V [or mother] against V's father per EC 352 where its probative value was questionable, and no clear showing of falsity was made.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting photos of Ds wearing gang colors, showing gang signs, displaying weapons and visiting grave sites of murdered Crips where relevant to prove conspiracy to commit murder and street gang finding.
  • EC 352 exclusion of evidence of pregnant victim's misdemeanor welfare fraud violated neither the confrontation nor due process clauses.
  • No abuse of discretion in excluding e-mail sent by litigant "during compromise negotiations in which parties were discussing, and attempting to discover, the facts underlying their dispute."
  • Reversible error to exclude defense evidence that mother of child who allegedly died from shaken baby syndrome, had previously jerked and shaken and abused him.
  • Reversible error to admit testimony of D’s interpreter as to D’s ambiguous act at counsel table without weighing EC 352 factors.
  • Trial court's discretion to exclude propensity evidence under Evid. Code §352 saves Evid. Code §1109 as well as Evid. Code §1108 from due process challenge.
  • Evidence of other offenses may be inherently prejudicial, but also extremely relevant, especially sexual offenses, and still subject to exclusion under Evid. Code §352.
  • A finding as to admissibility of evidence under Evid. Code §352 is left to sound discretion of trial ct. and will not be disturbed unless it manifestly constituted an abuse of discretion.
  • The more substantial the probative value, the greater must be danger of prejudice to justify finding that probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of undue influence.
  • Cases generally discussing court's discretion in excluding relevant evidence.


    •