What is the balance between admitting and excluding evidence in a criminal case?

My colleagues would strike a different balance under Evidence Code section 352 than did the trial court. It would not have been unreasonable for the trial court to have reached a similar conclusion and excluded the evidence. I disagree, however, that it was required to do so. Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court's ruling will not be disturbed, and reversal ... is not required, unless the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 13281329, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 658, 242 P.3d 105.) The decision made here by

[238 Cal.App.4th 512]

the trial court in admitting the evidence was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd, nor was it beyond the bounds of reason. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 666, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640 [[a] court abuses its discretion when its ruling falls outside the bounds of reason ].) In my view, no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Notes:

¹ Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

¹ Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.