EC 210. Relevant evidence is “Evidence…having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.”
“Relevance” describes whether evidence should be heard because it might reasonably resolve a dispute. “Weight” describes the degree to which the jury finds the evidence probative. (People v. Turner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 786, 805.)
Probative Value. Test of relevance is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive. (People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 177.)
The chief elements of probative value are relevance, materiality, and necessity. The court must ascertain that the evidence:
(1) tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to prove the issue on which it is offered;
(2) is offered on an issue that will ultimately prove to be material to the party’s case; and
EC 352. Trial court has discretion to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will:
(a) necessitate undue consumption of time; or
(b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.
Prejudice. “Evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative [only] if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable ‘risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome.’” (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724.)
“Evidence Code section 352 balancing is undertaken on a sliding scale. The more substantial the probative value of the evidence, the greater the danger of the presence of one of the excluding factors that must be present to support an exercise of trial court discretion excluding the evidence. Where the evidence relates to a critical issue, directly supports an inference relevant to that issue, and other evidence does not as directly support the same inference, the testimony must be received over a section 352 objection absent highly unusual circumstances.” (People v. Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 1285.)
Undue Prejudice. Undue prejudice is not evidence which will help convict a defendant; it is evidence that would allow a jury to convict the defendant for the wrong reason. The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under EC 352 is designed to avoid is not prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors. (People v. Escobar (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 999, 1023.)
While the jury must be shielded from ” ‘depictions that sensationalize’ ” the alleged crimes, ” ‘the jury cannot be shielded from an accurate depiction of the charged crimes that does not necessarily play upon the emotions of the jurors.’ ” (People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 238.)
EC 356
When a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing that is necessary to make the first evidence understood may also be given into evidence. (EC 356.)
EC 356 allows further inquiry into the omitted part of an act or statement only if it is relevant to the same subject as the evidence already introduced. (People v. Breaux (1991) 1 Cal.4th 281, 302.)
The purpose of the rule is “to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed.” (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 600.)
Common examples include maps, charts, and diagrams all of which illustrate a witness’s testimony. (Ibid.)
“[D]emonstrative evidence is admissible for the purpose of illustrating and clarifying a witness’ testimony’ so long as a proper foundation is laid.” (People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 708.)
Computer Animations. Courts will “allow the admission of a computer animation as demonstrative evidence of expert testimony, but only if certain conditions are met. The animation must accurately depict an expert opinion, the expert opinion must fairly represent the evidence, the trial court must provide a proper limiting instruction, and the animation must otherwise be admissible under Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 509.)
Consciousness of Guilt
The inference of consciousness of guilt from willful falsehood or fabrication or suppression of evidence is one supported by common sense. (People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 142.)
Flight instruction properly given if jury could reasonably infer that D’s flight reflected consciousness of guilt, and flight requires neither the physical act of running nor the reaching of a far-away haven. Flight manifestly does require, however, a purpose to avoid being observed or arrested. (People v. Crandell (1988) 46 Cal.3d 833, 869.)
People v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903. To determine whether the value of stolen property exceeds the $950 threshold separating petty theft from grand theft, courts must apply a “reasonable and fair market value” test.
Reasonable and Fair Market Value test is the price a reasonable buyer and seller would agree on if the buyer wants to buy the property and the seller wanted to sell it, but neither was under an urgent need to buy or sell.
Owner of personal property is qualified to opine about its value. (EC 813(a)(2).)
The owner of personal property who is familiar with its original cost and use is qualified to testify regarding its value…The owner of an article, whether he is generally familiar with such values or not, ought certainly to be allowed to estimate its worth. (People v. Haney (1932) 126 Cal.App. 473, 475.)
Trial court permitted to credit victim’s statement to infer that “stolen debit cards would have been valued in the marketplace at or near the balances in the linked accounts, that is, the highest price someone would have been willing to pay for cards to access those funds.” (Caretto v. Superior Court (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 909, 921.)
Where a number of takings, committed pursuant to a single scheme or plan, are each less than the felony grand theft amount, but aggregated reached that amount, the offense is grand theft. (People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514, 519.)
The legislature “has not overruled Bailey’s holding permitting the accumulation of a series of petty thefts into one grand theft.” (People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 741.)
CALCRIM 1802: combine multiple petty thefts to single grand theft if:
(1) D committed theft of property from same owner or possessor on more than one occasion
(2) Combined value of property was over $950
(3) D obtained the property as part of a single, overall plan or objective
Factors to consider when assessing whether single objective/overall plan:
In General. Admission of evidence in state trials is ordinarily governed by state law, and the reliability of relevant testimony typically falls within the province of the jury to determine.” (Perry v. New Hampshire (2012) 565 U.S. 228, 232.)
Due Process Right. To determine whether the admission of identification evidence violates a defendant’s due process rights, the court asks two questions
Second, even if the lineup was unnecessarily suggestive, the court asks whether the identification was nonetheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances. (People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 35.)
But if the indicia of reliability are strong enough to outweigh the corrupting effect of the police-arranged suggestive circumstances, the identification evidence ordinarily will be admitted, and the jury will ultimately determine its worth. (People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 901.)
Dispelling taint. The taint of an unduly suggestive lineup “map be dispelled if the People show by clear and convincing evidence that the identification of the defendant had an independent origin.” (People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 689.)
PC 859.7. Statute sets out ideal circumstances in which a photo lineup should be conducted (i.e. double blind)
But: “nothing in this section is intended to preclude the admissibility of any relevant evidence or to effect the standards governing the admissibility of evidence under the United States Constitution.” (PC 859.7(b).)
Immigration Status
Immigration status shall not be disclosed in open court unless judge first determines admissibility in an in camera hearing. (EC 351.4.)
Third Party Culpability
Overview
“To be admissible, the third-party evidence need not show ‘substantial proof of a probability’ that the third person committed the act; it need only be capable of raising a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 833.)
“Evidence of a third party’s motive, without more, is inadmissible. A fortiori, evidence showing only a third party’s possible motive is not capable of raising a reasonable doubt of a defendant’s guilt and is thus inadmissible.” (People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1018.)
“[E]vidence of mere opportunity without further evidence linking the third party to the actual perpetration of the offense is inadmissible as third-party culpability evidence.” (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 582.)
“[T]here must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.” (People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 833.)
Prior Threats from V to D. A defendant charged with assaultive crimes who claims self-defense may present evidence that the alleged victim had previously threatened him. (People v. Moore (1954) 43 Cal.2d 517, 527-529.)
Third-Party Threats to D. Evidence of third party threats is admissible to support a claim of self-defense if there is also evidence from which the jury may find that the defendant reasonably associated the victim with those threats. (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1060.)