Is exclusion of evidence intended to avoid prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Bruley, C062386, Super. Ct. No. 08F00718 (Cal. App. 2010):
"'The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.' [Citations.] 'Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of "prejudging" a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors.'" (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 958.)
"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
Is exclusion of evidence designed to avoid prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence? (California, United States of America)
Is there any undue prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence? (California, United States of America)
Is there any prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence? (California, United States of America)
Is prejudicial or damaging to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the definition of prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from probative evidence? (California, United States of America)
When the evidence is sufficient to sustain some but not all alleged damages, when the evidence does not support all of the damages, will the court reduce the judgment to the amount supported by the evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the exclusion of a single item of marginally relevant evidence under California Evidence Code section 352 preclude a defendant from presenting his "consensual sexual relationship" defense? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have a constitutional right to present highly probative evidence in support of his mistake of law defense? (California, United States of America)
Does the prosecution have to avoid using relevant, persuasive evidence to prove an element of a crime because that element might also be established through other evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for the exclusion of evidence intended to establish an accused's defense? (California, United States of America)
