CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
......Undue Consumpt. of Time/Evid. Cumulative
.........Cases Excluding Evidence
15 Cards On This Topic:

No error to exclude photo of tattoo on V's arm, of a hand pointing a gun, as cumulative where D could not show he knew about the tattoo so as to lay a foundation for its bearing on his actions.

Proper to exclude impeachment evidence that lead homicide task force O was charged with crimes and fired from the force where proof of the charges would require an undue consumption of time and her termination was not relevant.

Where D had no evidence V's boyfriend bruised her, other than speculation and fact the coroner could not state when the bruises were inflicted, and BF flatly denied it, no abuse of discretion in sustaining DA's motion to exclude.

Well within court's discretion to exclude as time-consuming and confusing the military records of the man whom D claimed knifed V where records didn't show knife or bayonet training.

Detailed evidence by prior rape V about another’s involvement in her rape properly excluded as it would have created substantial danger of undue consumption of time or of confusing issues in D’s murder trial.

Court did not abuse discretion in excluding defense W's testimony about her drug detention after her initial testimony where clear DA and court had nothing to do with it and it was not relevant to any issue in case.

Exclusion of evidence of 4-year-old suicide attempt under circumstances not remotely similar to those under which D attempted suicide here was not an abuse of discretion.

Court within its discretion in preventing E from expressing opinion on whether D's conduct before, during, and after crimes was binge pattern of crack cocaine use—such opinion based on D's later hearsay statements to E—hypos sufficient.

No abuse of discretion in finding, under EC 352, that any slight impeachment effect of the remote possibility W was testifying in hopes of leniency was outweighed by undue consumption of time the questioning would entail.

Trial court acted within discretion in sustaining EC 352 objection to D's request to show accomplice's probation for unrelated armed robbery was rare and merely part of favorable plea bargain here.

D not precluded from attempting to prove co-D [tried separately] pulled trigger, but not with time-consuming, non-probative hearsay and character evidence.

Error to admit evidence of D's prior uncharged offense where it was merely cumulative on issue not reasonably subject to dispute and likelihood of prejudice high; error harmless where evidence of D's gang membership overwhelming.

No abuse of discretion where D's surrebuttal was precluded (1) as a sanction for violating discovery rules and, implicitly, (2) as unduly time consuming and potentially prejudicial under EC 352.

No error in cutting off cross-exam of P's witness when D had previously well covered same areas of inquiry.

Cases excluding cumulative evidence.