What is the definition of prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from probative evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Pickens, E056562 (Cal. App. 2013):
prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from probative evidence; rather, it is evidence that "'"uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues."'" (People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1214.)
"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 intended to avoid prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence? (California, United States of America)
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 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 prejudicial or damaging to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly 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 Court have authority to exclude evidence where a defendant has been found to be contrary to the evidence code under section 352 of the California Evidence Code? (California, United States of America)
Can the prosecution in a criminal case compel the defense to accept a stipulation that would deprive the state of its ability to present persuasive and forceful defense evidence? (California, United States of America)
Is a judge's comment on the evidence that the defense argued that the evidence presented before the jury was "objectionable to the prosecution" sufficient to constitute misconduct? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a defense objection to the question "assumed facts not in evidence" or "misstated evidence"? (California, United States of America)
