CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Relevance
......Only Relevant Evidence Admissible
.........Case Application
 22 Cards On This Topic:
  • Defendant's brief refusal to appear at trial did not have a tendency in reason to prove consciousness of guilt, and should have been excluded as irrelevant.
  • Evidence is not speculative, and therefore irrelevant under EC §350, merely because inferences are required to find its relevance.
  • Trial court properly exercised its discretion in overruling D's EC 210 and EC 352 objections to evidence of V's poor eyesight and mobility problems.
  • Testimony that plaintiff knew another employee had been terminated for reporting sexual harassment properly excluded under EC §352.
  • Evidence of defendant's intoxication properly excluded under EC §§350 and 352 where it was inadmissible to negate presence of general criminal intent.
  • Documents that satisfied hearsay exception were properly excluded from evidence because they did not meet foundational requirements showing relevance to issues in dispute.
  • No abuse of discretion in refusing to exclude evidence re unadjudicated murder and testimony of V's boyfriend on ground of DA failure to disclose DNA lab report in discovery where report not relevant to proffer of other crimes evidence.
  • Mother's statement at penalty phase that D's death would destroy her was not relevant to an individualized determination of D's culpability and properly excluded.
  • Because W had significant relationship with D, and her opinion was based on a feature of D's character she had personally observed, her opinion he should not be executed was relevant and admissible.
  • Evidence about D's state of mind following the disappearance of V was relevant, evidence he argued with his supervisor the night before was not relevant for this purpose; error harmless.
  • Given defense counsel's lack of specificity, trial court properly precluded questioning on the topic of victims' brother's alleged drug connection.
  • Dispatch tape with impressions of police dispatcher who knew little about murder investigation, and which showed no conspiracy to frame D, was irrelevant.
  • Relevance objection to V's wife's testimony re contents of V's pharmacy safe properly sustained.
  • No DP or state law violation in DA's failing to disclose memo re V's misdirected phone call from Mex. where irrelevant and utterly ancillary to question of D's guilt of murders and penalty.
  • Whether totally inadmissible as irrelevant under EC §350, or a discretionary exclusion under EC §352, trial court erred in ruling prospective jurors could be told P was an undocumented immigrant.
  • Error to find Mothers Against Drunk Driving employees' personal-tragedy testimony relevant under EC §350 and EC §352 where testimony was wholly unrelated to D's charged offense, including implied malice; error harmless.
  • Prejudicial error to admit evidence of V's marijuana use where such use is irrelevant in the absence of a causal connection between it and the accident.
  • Because the DA presented no evidence associating D with drug trafficking organizations, trial ct. abused its EC 352 discretion in admitting special agent's testimony re structure and practices of drug trafficking organizations.
  • Evidence must lead to relevant inference to be admissible.
  • No discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.
  • Evidence offered for non-hearsay purpose to avoid hearsay objection still must be relevant.
  • Cases discussing relevant evidence and admissibility.


    •