What is the proper order of proof in a criminal trial?

The statutorily prescribed order of proof in a criminal trial is well-known: the prosecution presents its case first, the defense presents any evidence it wishes to present next, and both sides may then "respectively offer rebutting testimony only." ( 1093, subds. (c)-(d).) Trial courts have discretion to vary from this order of proof, and we will not reverse a judgment unless a court's decision to adhere to or depart from the customary order of proof constitutes a "palpable abuse" of that discretion. (People v.

Page 19

Demond (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 574, 587; see also People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1, 46 ["'The order of proof rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the fact that the evidence in question might have tended to support the prosecution's case-in-chief does not make it improper rebuttal. [Citations.] It is improper for the prosecution to deliberately withhold evidence that is appropriately part of its case-in-chief, in order to offer it after the defense rests its case and thus perhaps surprise the defense or unduly magnify the importance of the evidence. Nevertheless, when the evidence in question meets the requirements for impeachment it may be admitted on rebuttal to meet the evidence on a point the defense has put into dispute'"].)