California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Davis, A145494 (Cal. App. 2017):
"Subject to certain limitations inapplicable to the present discussion, all relevant evidence is admissible [citations], and relevant evidence is defined as evidence 'having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.' [Citation.] Evidence is relevant if it tends ' "logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference" to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive. [Citations.]' [Citations.] The trial court has considerable discretion in determining the relevance of evidence. [Citations.]" (People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal.4th 584, 633-634; see Evid. Code, 210, 351.)
Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, a trial court may exclude relevant evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." We review a trial court's ruling pursuant to Evidence Code section 352 under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1121.)
Page 10
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.