CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Relevance
......Intro of Partial Statement or Act
.........Application of Rule
 16 Cards On This Topic:
  • 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.
  • As letters to victim that were admitted established same facts re D's state of mind he claimed would have been adduced by excluded letters, their exclusion was harmless.
  • No error in excluding surrebuttal evidence to explain why D afraid to tell wife he discovered V's body where D brought forth the evidence and was not an ••adverse party•• entitled to ask about the whole subject under EC 356.
  • Admission of statements of witness present at murders to a victim/witness and police officer not improper where D either invited error, waived issue or error harmless.
  • After D's introduction of partial transcript of W testimony, court properly admitted entire transcript, as bearing on portion D introduced (Evid. Code §356).
  • DA's introducing slips of paper does not make appointment books to which papers were clipped admissible under Evid. Code §356; books neither relevant nor part of writing introduced.
  • Additional portion must be relevant to statement introduced.
  • No abuse of discretion in denying admission of D's exculpatory stmt under EC 356 where court reasonably determined admissions and stmt were made at different times and stmt was not needed to make prior admissions understood.
  • D forfeited the right to challenge statements proffered by DA from accomplice's interview by himself introducing other statements made by accomplice during same interview.
  • Nicole's diary entries and portions of letter to O.J. properly admitted for limited purpose of showing Nicole’s state of mind.
  • If part of writing introduced, relevancy and 352 factors must still be considered before balance admitted.
  • Statute permits admission of favorable and unfavorable evidence.
  • Within discretion of court to have omitted portion read in conjunction with statement.
  • Where one party introduces part of conversation, opposing party may admit other part, to place original excerpts in context or correct misleading impression; court must exercise Evid. Code §352 discretion.
  • Fact that portion of conversation not heard or was unintelligible does not make entire statement inadmissible.
  • All parts of occurrence testified to, verbal as well as physical, are properly within scope of cross-examination.


    •