CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Court Control of Proceedings
......Rebuttal Evidence
12 Cards On This Topic:
  • Rebuttal evidence in order of procedure.
  • Evidence impeaching D's alibi witness was permissible rebuttal as it could not have been presented in the DA's case-in-chief, having only become relevant when the defense called W as an alibi witness.
  • No requirement to present O's rebuttal in DA's case-in-chief—it was not "crucial evidence" as to D2's racial animus and any error harmless as jury found not true the hate crime special circs and race murder allegations.
  • No DA misconduct when cross-examining D wife about H's claim he, not she, was the battered spouse, where conduct did not amount to the kind of deceptive or reprehensible tactic rising to level of prosecutorial misconduct.
  • Where D introduced evidence of childhood abuse to bolster her claim she was an abused spouse, it was proper for DA to counter this testimony with expert opinion that an abused child may also grow up to be an abuser.
  • No error in denying continuance for E's surrebutal where E never barred from returning to the stand, no dispute arose as to info. E relayed at trial, and no evidence these collateral matters would have undermined E's credibility.
  • Boss's rebuttal testimony, as to limited scope of D's job and his disappearance from work, properly admitted to challenge D's testimony that he was "basically assistant manager" and was gone from work on vacation.
  • When, as here, a mental health expert offers a diagnosis, this opens the door to rebuttal testimony questioning that diagnosis or suggesting an alternative diagnosis.
  • No error to allow jury to hear DA's rebuttal evidence re newly discovered specks of blood on pants D wearing at arrest; relevant to contradict D's stmts re his position at time of shooting.
  • Neither improper, nor violative of any pretrial evidentiary ruling, for the DA to draw a deduction from the evidence of V's being gay in response to defense counsel's own closing arguments concerning consent.
  • Trial ct. has broad discretion over scope of rebuttal evidence.
  • Proper rebuttal evidence does not include a material part of the case in the DA's possession that tends to establish D's commission of the crime.