How have the courts dealt with the cumulative effect of a cumulative set of evidentiary rulings?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Santa Anna, B221866 (Cal. App. 2011):
Appellant argues that even if we find the evidentiary rulings resulted in harmless error when considered individually, the cumulative effect of the rulings deprived him of a fair trial. We are satisfied that the two rulings to which appellant objects did not affect the fairness of the trial whether considered individually or collectively. (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1009.)
"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.
Other Questions
How have the courts dealt with a defendant's claim that the cumulative effect of evidentiary errors denied him due process? (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)
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)
What is the cumulative effect of errors found by the Court of Appeal when considering cumulative effect? (California, United States of America)
How have courts dealt with the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors? (California, United States of America)
How have courts reviewed the evidentiary rulings of a trial court? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts and prosecutors dealt with the cumulative effect of errors and the prosecutor's misconduct? (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)
How does the Court of Appeal interpret the evidentiary rulings of the Superior Court of Justice? (California, United States of America)
Can a court's frustration and irritation at counsel's repeated efforts to violate evidentiary rules be viewed as "friction between court and counsel"? (California, United States of America)
