California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Fruits, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 8, 247 Cal.App.4th 188 (Cal. App. 2016):
Although Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), was not expressly cited by the trial court as a basis for its ruling, the prosecutor did argue in the in limine motion that the evidence was admissible to establish defendant's intent, the reasonableness of the victim's fear and motive, and the trial court did acknowledge that prior threats were relevant to prove the victim's fear. We will affirm the trial court's evidentiary ruling if it is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case, even if for reasons different than those expressly stated by the trial court. No rule of decision is better or more firmly established by authority, nor one resting upon a sounder basis of reason and propriety, than that a ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason. If right upon any theory of the law applicable to the case, it must be sustained regardless of the considerations which may have moved the trial court to its conclusion. (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704.) Accordingly, we conclude the prior elder abuse evidence here was also probative of defendant's motive to commit all of the charged offenses.
[202 Cal.Rptr.3d 23]
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.