CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
......Third Party Culpability Evid.
24 Cards On This Topic:

No error in excluding 3d party culpability evidence where there was no link b/t the 3d party and the crime—that the 3d party used a knife on a prior unrelated occasion hardly linked him to the present crimes.

No abuse of discretion in excluding 3d party culpability evidence where common features of charged and uncharged crimes were not so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.

No abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of prostitutes being murdered after D was arrested where he did not show a link b/t a 3d person and the crimes charged against him, and prostitutes are vulnerable and tend to be victimized.

Trial court properly excluded 3d party culpability evidence where nothing in partial statement tended to raise a reasonable doubt about D's guilt and EC 356 rule of completeness applied as Crawford exception.

D failed to prove error in trial court's exclusion of purported 3d party culpability evidence contained in clues received by sheriff's information hotline.

Where evidence of accomplice's motive weak and evidence against D strong, even if D sought to present accomplice's testimony to support 3d party culpability theory, its partial exclusion would not have prejudiced D.

No error in excluding D's evidence that 3d party, V’s ex-H and her child’s father, committed the murders where D's offer of proof was mere inadmissible evidence of propensity for violence to prove identity.

Trial ct. properly excluded 3d party culpability evidence where nothing in proposed testimony would link 3d party to charged crimes.

All circumstances, including compatible nature of each 3d party culpability defense, strongly supported denial of severance of D's and co-D girlfriend's trials.

No error in excluding as irrelevant a bag of untested white powder that was found in church where murders took place; its mere presence did not tend to prove 3d party committed murders during drug deal.

Trial court did not err in excluding evidence of handgun convictions of DA witnesses stopped near crime scene 10 days later; it did not "exclude" police report note that witness' car seen at crime scene where no record such evidence offered.

Since D did not seek admission of testimony at trial as third party culpability evidence, he forfeited any claim that it was improperly excluded for that purpose.

No error in excluding statements of 3d parties re V1's 1995 murder in Chicago where they would not raise a reasonable doubt as to D's culpability for 1994 murders in Gardena.

Trial ct. properly excluded evidence of postmurder burglary of V's house: failed attempt to burgle abandoned house weeks after murders did not alone raise reasonable inference that missing rings were left in house after murders.

No abuse of discretion in excluding D's proffered testimony re 3d party culpability where offer of proof served another purpose at trial.

3d party culpability testimony properly excluded as no direct or circumstantial evidence linked 3d party to crime and probative value outweighed by potential prejudice and confusion.

D has no right to admit third party culpability evidence when it does nothing more than show that it was possible another did crime.

Mere presence of 3d party parolee in general area of V's body 2 days after V's disappearance not sufficient to prove 3d party culpability; evidence properly excluded.

Despite some similarities, the dissimilarities between a later local burglary and V's condo murder were striking, and the trial court, within its discretion, concluded D failed to raise a reasonable inference of 3d party culpability.

No error in ruling inadmissible evidence of uncharged robbery D1 wanted to use to show 3d-party culpability where court relied on his confession which was suppressed under Miranda.

Trial court properly weighed and excluded 3d party culpability evidence, finding insufficient evidence to link 3d party who argued with V over drugs to V's gang-related murder.

Court properly excluded W testimony describing suspects in another robbery; no circumstantial or direct evidence linked 3rd person to crime and no reasonable doubt was raised re Ds' guilt.

O's testimony that V's passenger ID'd 3d party as perpetrator in photo lineup properly stricken as hearsay w/out substantial indicia of trustworthiness; Chambers distinguished.

Evidence of V's mother's possible sexual abuse by own father not relevant or probative where evidence tangential and no evidence to connect grandfather with offense.