California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bristow, C081880 (Cal. App. 2017):
"[T]he latitude section 352 allows for exclusion of impeachment evidence in individual cases is broad. The statute empowers courts to prevent criminal trials from degenerating into nitpicking wars of attrition over collateral credibility issues. . . . [] When exercising its discretion under . . . section 352, a court must always take into account, as applicable, those factors traditionally deemed pertinent in this area. [Citations.] But additional considerations may apply when evidence other than felony convictions is offered for impeachment. In general, a misdemeanor -- or any other conduct not amounting to a felony -- is a less forceful indicator of immoral character or dishonesty than is a felony. Moreover, impeachment evidence other than felony convictions entails problems of proof, unfair surprise, and moral turpitude evaluation which felony convictions do not present. Hence, courts may and should consider with particular care whether the admission of such evidence might involve undue time, confusion, or prejudice which outweighs its probative value." (People v. Wheeler, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 296-297.)
We review a trial court's rulings regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence under section 352 for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1195.) " '[T]he term judicial discretion "implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking." ' [Citation.] '[D]iscretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered.' " (People v. Mullens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 648, 658.) "Because the court's discretion to admit or exclude impeachment evidence 'is as broad as necessary to deal with the great variety of factual situations in which the issue arises' [citation], a reviewing court ordinarily will uphold the trial court's exercise of discretion." (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 932.)
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.