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


    •