Does the trial court abuse its discretion when it finds evidence of malice relevant?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ashmus, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 54 Cal.3d 932, 820 P.2d 214 (Cal. 1991):
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found the evidence relevant. "Because one of the theories on which the prosecution tried the case and on which the jury was instructed was premeditated murder, malice was material and the photographs [and slides] were relevant to that issue." (People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584, 594, 238 Cal.Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350.) Contrary to defendant's argument, we think it plain that these items had at least some tendency to prove malice.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
