CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evid.
......Discretion of Court
.........Specific Applic's of Balancing Process
 27 Cards On This Topic:
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting testimony D's accomplice left schoolroom with latex gloves where other evidence showed robbers had used latex gloves in Vs' residence, and it logically tended to connect accomplice to the crime.
  • As no evidence L.A. jail informant obtained info from any source other than D, admission of Fresno news articles would have asked jury to speculate that informant had somehow seen articles and used them to make up testimony.
  • Trial court properly concluded prejudicial effect of D's proffered witness evidence as to V's stmts about sex the night of murder—primarily by confusing issues—substantially outweighed any probative value.
  • No abuse of discretion in excluding V's redacted statement to witness that co-D burned him over 1/4 ounce of meth where it was probative of their relationship, relevant to V's state of mind and added little to D's defense.
  • No error in excluding D's answer on direct as to whether he was surprised at being charged with sodomy and rape of child victim.
  • Jurors could infer from psychologist's testimony that D was a sadistic pedophile, and premeditated and committed crime for sexual pleasure of the act, an aggravating factor-inference permissible, so evidence highly probative.
  • E's testimony concerning interviews with children who had been sadistically molested properly admitted as highly probative.
  • Although objection waived, D's statements re 3 murders would not have indicated to jury D committed other murders and would have been proper under EC 352.
  • No error in excluding defense E's testimony on alcoholic blackouts as related to V where it was mere speculation, would have little probative value, and E's lengthy and "quite confusing" testimony likely to mislead jury.
  • Trial court properly excluded evidence P's corporation was once suspended where it was qualified to do business in CA at time of transactions at issue in case.
  • No abuse of discretion in excluding expert atty's testimony on meaning of a People v. West plea as irrelevant and confusing to jury under EC 352; D's EC 801 argument unavailing.
  • Court correctly determined D's DUI program records not subject to [former] H&SC 11977 and did not err by refusing to exclude records and testimony due to DA's failure to comply with fed regs.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting past act evidence in domestic assault where found highly probative under Evid. Code §1109 and court carefully exercised balancing test.
  • Court within discretion in limiting defense expert testimony at penalty phase in death penalty trial.
  • Court abused discretion in excluding ••all•• evidence of third-party threats to D from V's friends where relevant to D's claim of self defense.
  • Court infers implicit Evid. Code §352 balancing by trial court on basis of record indications well short of express statement.
  • Court reaffirms that uncharged sexual offenses admissible under Evid. Code §1108 if not inadmissible under Evid. Code §352 and that Evid. Code §1108 is constitutional.
  • In criminal cases, unless evidence offered by D plainly inadmissible, usually better to err on side of admissibility.
  • Error to exclude defense eyewitness evidence simply because W readily subject to impeachment for inconsistent prior testimony.
  • Remoteness is only one factor re admissibility of other act evidence.
  • Case reversed for improper exclusion of evidence pursuant to Evid. Code §352. Relevant evidence cannot be excluded because it is prejudicial to DA's case.
  • Application of Evid. Code §352 where offer to stipulate.
  • Dist. ct. erred in excluding possibly exculpatory evidence which was probative on issue of who committed crime at issue.
  • Exercise of discretion re collateral issues.
  • Exercise of discretion re admission of photos and videotapes.
  • Admitting uncharged sexual offenses under Evid. Code §1108 and 1101.
  • Cases discussing various aspects of the exercise of the court's discretion in excluding evidence under Evid. Code §352.


    •