CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
......Misleading Jury: Confusion of Issues
12 Cards On This Topic:

Court has discretion to exclude relevant evidence if it creates substantial danger of confusing issues, or of misleading jury.

Misleading evidence and confusion of issues.

Trial court properly ruled that evidence of the specific crime of which a 2d D was convicted in a separate trial was irrelevant and misleading

No abuse of EC 352 discretion in excluding evidence of alleged threat that D's girlfriend, the DA's chief witness, made some time before the murder, that she would have D "taken out" by a rival gang.

No abuse of discretion in excluding evidence that detectives involved in D's case were accused of fabricating evidence in another case where it was only marginally relevant and might have confused jury.

Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting testimony re D's 1981 arrest for rape and/or sodomy of his two daughters.

Trial court properly excluded on relevance grounds D's attempts to prove V was intoxicated per Vehicle Code standards, where D essentially wanted jurors to speculate on irrelevant speculative inferences.

Redacted transcripts of confessions would not have been provided in error where jurors would not be alerted to substance of anything removed or think it related to uncharged crimes.

Court properly excluded expert testimony that W secretly hypnotized because preliminary fact of hypnotism unproven, evidence time-consuming, and would confuse or mislead jury.

Abuse of discretion to admit in elder abuse case a class A citation and statement of deficiencies issued by Dept. of Public Health against nursing home.

May not utilize Evid. Code §352 (b) to exclude evidence crucial to key element of D's case.

Paint comparison based on scrapings 3-years-old too speculative; properly excluded as possibly confusing to jury.