CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
......Balancing Prob. Value & Prejudice
.........Prob. Value Outweighs Prejudice
 48 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.
  • Evidence of D's parole status and conditions and witness's testimony of his fear of going back to jail properly admitted re his murder of police officer under Evid. Code §352.
  • Evidence of D's jailhouse kites properly admitted under EC 352—relevant as an admission to V's murder and a prior, and not unduly prejudicial; Massiah inapplicable as inmate informant not a govt. agent.
  • Where D pled not guilty, interrogation cell videotape showing him apparently checking his genitals for evidence that he had sex with V was highly relevant to show his consciousness of guilt.
  • No abuse of discretion in denying D's motion to introduce, as impeachment evidence, a statement W had made to a defense investigator that, if forced to testify at trial, he would pin the murder on an alleged accomplice.
  • Deputy's testimony that D shaved "187" into his hair pending trial was relevant, not particularly prejudicial, and properly admitted.
  • Trial ct. did not abuse its discretion in finding evidence re presumptive blood tests conducted on jacket seized from D's closet was relevant.
  • Testimony re D's interest in flame gun was relevant and demonstrated his continuing interest in firearms during a period immediately preceding his murderous assault on former coworkers.
  • No error in refusing to redact statements in D's postarrest interview with O for penalty retrial.
  • Trial court did not err in penalty phase evidentiary rulings re mitigation witnesses where evidence re witnesses' credibility either not relevant or probative.
  • Excerpt from D's jailhouse letter read by girlfriend on witness stand, re "hackers, murderers, pirates, and ... I fit the bill" properly admitted as admission of guilt.
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying D's EC 352 motions to exclude friends' testimony as to his incriminating stmts re charged crimes.
  • No EC 352 error to admit court-appointed psychiatrist’s testimony as to confession D made to him where it was relevant to rebut D’s assertions he had not confessed to others or was merely bragging.
  • Officer's testimony re sex videos found in D's bedroom was relevant to explain statement D made to girlfriend about a inculpatory video and to rebut defense claim re other evidence.
  • Admitting unredacted letters from D to parents/Vs and girlfriend not error where counsel didn't object at trial; used to prove motive and plot against witness, letters also humanized D and no showing counsel ineffective for not objecting.
  • Evidence of D's membership in gang, gang's activities and motivations of gang members to participate in criminal activities was relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
  • Trial court properly admitted testimony of V's family members where it corroborated D's confession, was relevant, filled in chronology and was brief, factual and unemotional.
  • Surgeon's testimony as to suffering of V whom D set afire was "extremely relevant" to proving torture/murder special circumstance, and probative value outweighed prejudice.
  • Evidence of D's knowledge of police investigatory procedures for rape relevant to his washing his genital area in cell latrine after murder.
  • No abuse of discretion in allowing use of D's nickname at trial where some Ws knew him only by nickname, it would be impossible to sanitize entire trial of such references, and DA told to minimize its use to reduce prejudice.
  • Admitting D's Fruit Town gang reference very probative as to whether D's statement that he shot V was braggadocio or truth; by swearing to its truth on his gang, D himself distinguished statement from mere bravado.
  • Criminalists' testimony re forensic evidence linking D to murder not unduly prejudicial or improper.
  • While admission of guns in D's car improper if offered as "other crime" evidence, they were sufficiently connected to crimes that admission proper under EC 352.
  • No abuse of discretion in permitting doctor who treated rape/murder V at hospital to testify about her condition and the treatment she received before she died.
  • Crime scene and autopsy photos properly admitted as not offensive beyond the events and conditions they portrayed.
  • Stolen credit cards in Crown Royal bags, both connected to D, were distinctive enough "signature" to support inference he committed both charged and uncharged acts.
  • Prejudicial effect of D's stepfather's false statements did not substantially outweigh its probative value.
  • D's admission in letter to W, written after his death penalty verdict in other case, that he raped and killed both Vs, was highly probative on issue of identity and not unduly prejudicial.
  • No abuse of discretion in court's allowing evidence of county jail escape attempt but excluding evidence of D's accompanying threats against jail personnel.
  • Testimony of V's relatives, present during activities involving Vs preceding their deaths, filled in chronology of events and not unduly emotional.
  • Claim of error doesn't arise where no evidence introduced as result of ruling allowing its admission.
  • No error to deny D's motion to exclude gang evidence where it was relevant to motive and identity, tending to show V appeared to be member of deadly rival Crips.
  • Witness' testimony that she feared for life and was intimidated by D relevant to credibility, properly admitted and did not warrant mistrial.
  • Photos cannot be excluded just because they are inflammatory.
  • Evidence D ingested bath salts was properly admitted to show his state of mind when pointing loaded pistol at V—using bath salts with Vicodin and alcohol was relevant to explain why he acted in such conscious disregard for human life.
  • Homicidal Chucky doll evidence re D's gang moniker "Chucky" was neither irrelevant, nor inadmissible character evidence, and trial court did not abuse its discretion in impliedly finding it admissible under EC 352.
  • No abuse of discretion in allowing evidence of SWAT standoff before D's capture as resisting arrest is probative evidence of consciousness of guilt.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting D's gangster rap tracks under EC 352, where evidence probative of D's state of mind and criminal intent, as well as his membership in a criminal gang and his loyalty to it.
  • Trial ct. properly weighed any prejudice from evidence of D's statement to son, that he had and would have used a gun in unrelated incident days before murder, against its probative value.
  • Prejudicial error to exclude evidence in personal injury trial that P paid his own medical expenses.
  • No abuse of discretion in refusing to allow 3d-party culpability evidence where D did not meet his burden of proving it raised reasonable doubt as to his guilt and was more prejudicial than probative.
  • Court did not abuse discretion in allowing former attorney to testify as to D's threats against witnesses where relevant to witness intimidation claim and such testimony not exempted by statute.
  • Evidence that W, who confessed and said he didn't know D, was in same gang, probative as to bias; prejudice lessened as evidence limited to membership and gang's small size.
  • Witness's testimony properly admitted despite appearance.
  • Cases in which probative value is found to outweigh prejudice.
  • Evid. Code §352 applies to prior felony convictions for impeachment.
  • Evid. Code §352 applies to other act evidence under Evid. Code §1101 et seq.
  • Human body parts admitted over Evid. Code §352 objection.


    •