California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Potts, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 436 P.3d 899, 6 Cal.5th 1012 (Cal. 2019):
Second, this evidence did not merely show that defendant was impoverished. Instead, it revealed a baseline of his financeswhatever their stateand showed that he expected to acquire enough money to cover a debt that exceeded his current ability to pay. It is the expected acquisition of funds in the near future that makes these circumstances probative, not the mere fact of poverty. (Cf. People v. Kelly (1901) 132 Cal. 430, 431-432, 64 P. 563 ["Generally, evidence of the wealth or poverty of a defendant is not admissible; but the sudden possession of money, immediately after the commission of a larceny, by one who before that had been impecunious, is clearly admissible as a circumstance in the case"].)
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.