CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
......Discretion of Court
.........Credibility of Witnesses
20 Cards On This Topic:

Even if court erred in rejecting disclosure of D's girlfriend's psych records, error harmless where her fear of D was tangential, their impeachment value paled in comparison to D's assault on her credibility, and evidence of D’s guilt was strong.

Trial court properly exercised its EC 352 discretion in limiting impeachment of V's ex-H re alleged alterations to taped conversation in which V sought restraining order advice where no evidence supported allegations.

As D's arguments that W's psych. records were material were based on speculation and conjecture, not information in the records, neither his right of confrontation nor due process was violated by their nondisclosure.

Court properly precluded D from impeaching W [probation for misd. spousal battery] for bias where D did not show W threatened or offered leniency, and jury would not have significantly different impression of W's credibility.

Court did not err under EC 352 by admitting specific instances of D's bad character as rebuttal evidence to impeach his own and his expert psychiatrist's testimony.

To extent PI's testimony was to render an opinion about informant's credibility, testimony inadmissible; to extent purpose was to show how inmate informants confabulate testimony, no abuse of discretion in excluding it.

No rule of evidence would authorize trial court to exclude jailhouse W's testimony merely because his character was reprehensible and he had a motive to lie.

Trial court within its discretion to permit impeachment as to only one incident in accomplice's juvenile record, and D failed to show limiting impeachment based upon A's record violated his confrontation rights.

Trial ct. w/in its discretion in permitting testimony of D's supervisor recounting D's incriminating statements about relationships with women similar to murder Vs.

Having consistently rejected claims the testimony of jailhouse informants is inherently unreliable, trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate DP in denying motion to exclude their testimony under EC 352.

Evidence that accomplice raped another woman on same night, in same location where V was raped might have shown he had motive or opportunity to rape V but was insufficient to raise reasonable doubt about D’s guilt.

No abuse of discretion in precluding defense from playing for jury DA witness/accomplice taped police interviews to show his skill at lying in determining credibility where fact he was a liar already adequately established.

No error in admitting 2 prior incidents involving DA witness/accomplice on issue of his credibility, nor in excluding other evidence under EC 352.

Prior history of hearing voices not relevant to whether D specifically intended to rape V where D testified he heard voices after he murdered and raped her, not that the voices told him to attack her.

No abuse of discretion in excluding co-perp’s expectation he would be sentenced to LWOP where testimony would not make him a more credible witness; exclusion thus did not violate D’s due process right to present a defense.

Where appearance of judicial bias, unfairness colors entire record, P need not make affirm. showing of prejudice; test whether ct.'s comments would cause reasonable person to doubt ct.'s impartiality or lack confidence in fairness of proceedings.

Improper mention of polygraph, along with error in excluding evidence child victim's mother had shaken him, was prejudicial, substantially affecting crucial issue of prime W's credibility.

Court may not strike W's live testimony under Evid. Code §352 because it concludes W is lying; W credibility is question of fact for jury.

Instances in which trial judge may strike live testimony of Ws based on credibility.

Court cannot exclude testimony simply because it could be fabricated.