CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Relevance
......Relevant Evidence: Gen. Reqmts.
.........Relevance: Case Application
 18 Cards On This Topic:
  • Trial court properly excluded testimony of threats to D's investigator where D could not connect the anonymous call or threats to Freedom Rider motorcycle club members he claimed were trying to frame him.
  • Relevant evidence tends by reasonable inference to prove material issue.
  • Trial court erred in allowing speculative, irrelevant testimony about D's sexual inactivity two weeks prior to the crimes.
  • 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.
  • Court properly excluded purported V sighting and info re other potential suspects where proffered evidence had no tendency to establish any relevant fact.
  • O's expert testimony on White supremacy and D's participation in it properly admitted to show not only his abstract beliefs but was relevant to jury's determination of whether DA proved hate-murder special circumstance.
  • No error in admitting evidence W’s daughter suffered psychological problems because she saw the shootings and was too upset for W to spend much time with police; this is why his in-court account was more detailed.
  • Trial court properly limited counsel's cross-exam re V's frustration with construction workers other than D as it was irrelevant where her state of mind not at issue.
  • Trial court did not err in refusing to let psychologist testify on "unconscious transference" in witness I.D. where it was of tenuous relevance, highly speculative and tended to confuse jury.
  • Evidence D's father abused his mother, offered to support the inference his mother's caregiving was negatively affected, failed as speculative and for lack of foundation.
  • Building inspector's opinion about habitability of apartment where burglary took place was not relevant to 1st or 2d degree determination where it had no effect on habitability from V's point of view.
  • No error in allowing P's attorney to question City workers about track inspection and pothole detection where relevant to whether pothole should have been noticed before P's accident.
  • Trial court has wide discretion in determining relevancy.
  • No precise or universal test of relevancy re particular evidence.
  • No error to allow jury to hear DA's rebuttal evidence re newly discovered specks of blood on pants D wearing at arrest; relevant to contradict D's stmts re his position at time of shooting.
  • In determining whether evidence relevant, court resorts primarily to logic; evidence that tends to prove essential or probative fact is relevant.
  • Individual facts need not be relevant in and of themselves.
  • Absence of a fact may also be relevant evidence.


    •