Does the prosecution need to sanitize its case by presenting only the most antiseptic evidence?

We disagree with this argument. "The prosecution need not sap the force of its case by presenting only the most antiseptic evidence, even in the face of a defense offer to stipulate. [Citations.] A fortiori, where, as here, the prosecution must convince the fact finder, beyond reasonable doubt, of charges and allegations the defendant has not conceded, it need not sanitize its case by presenting only enough evidence to meet bare legal sufficiency." (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1138, disapproved on another ground by People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 421, fn. 22.)

We recognize "the state has a strong interest in prompt and efficient trials, and that interest permits the nonarbitrary exclusion of evidence, including 'when the presentation of the evidence will "necessitate undue consumption of time." ' [Citation.] Accordingly, neither the prosecution nor the defendant has a right to present cumulative evidence that creates a substantial danger of undue prejudice [citation] or that unduly consumes the court's time [citation]." (People v. Williams (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587, 611.)

Page 24