Does a ruling by a trial court that adversely affects a litigant's evidentiary presentation constitute a constitutional error?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from Ndjongo v. Airports, B248942 (Cal. App. 2015):

Though "[t]he failure to accord a party litigant his constitutional right to due process is reversible per se" (In re Marriage of Carlsson (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 281, 293 (Marriage of Carlsson)), not every ruling by a trial court that adversely affects a litigant's evidentiary presentation rises to the level of constitutional error. On the contrary, the trial court unquestionably "has the power to rule on the admissibility of evidence, exclude proffered evidence that is deemed to be irrelevant, prejudicial or cumulative and expedite proceedings which, in the court's view, are dragging on too long without significantly aiding the trier of fact." (Id. at p. 291.) It is only when the court abuses this discretion " 'in such manner as to prevent a full and fair opportunity to the parties to present all competent, relevant, and material evidence bearing upon any issue properly presented for determination' " that a litigant's due process rights are implicated. (Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, 1357)

The trial court has broad authority and a statutory duty to control trial proceedings, including the introduction and exclusion of evidence. (Evid. Code, 320, 352.) Evidence Code section 765 directs the trial court to "exercise reasonable control over the mode of interrogation of a witness so as to make interrogation as rapid, as distinct, and as effective for the ascertainment of the truth, as may be, and to protect the witness from undue harassment or embarrassment." Because the trial court has the power and the duty to exclude inadmissible, duplicative or unduly prejudicial evidence, "it is well established that where questions are asked which are improper, the court acts within the scope of its duty in refusing to allow them to be answered, even though no objection [is] made.

Page 22

[Citations.]" (People v. White (1954) 43 Cal.2d 740, 747; see also People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 144.)

Other Questions


Does the "right ruling, wrong reasoning" rule apply to an evidentiary ruling that required the trial court to make findings of fact? (California, United States of America)
How have courts reviewed the evidentiary rulings of a trial court? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
If defendant fails to establish all the errors of the trial court as a cumulative result of the cumulative error, can he continue to argue that the cumulative effect of the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and mandates reversal? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the evidentiary rulings of a trial court? (California, United States of America)
What are the evidentiary rulings of the trial court for abuse of evidentiary evidence? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
What are the findings of the trial court on a motion for a new trial where a jury was not adversely affected by an audio recording that was secretly recorded during jury deliberations? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court's instructional error on the "natural and probable consequences" rule deny a defendant due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment? (California, United States of America)
Does a quasi-judicial review of the evidence presented to the trial court to determine whether any triable issues of fact were presented? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.