What is the test for excluding character evidence in a criminal case?

Even assuming the court erred in sustaining the prosecution's objections, "[a]pplication of the ordinary rules of evidence" to exclude character evidence "does not impermissibly infringe on a defendant's right to present a defense. [Citation.]" (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 440.) "Although completely excluding evidence of an accused's defense theoretically could rise to this level" (People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1103), that did not happen. Beltran testified she never saw defendant with a gun or heard him say he ever shot anyone or confess to a crime. Nor had she seen a gun in his truck or known him to carry one. Additionally, after sustaining the prosecution's objection to the question of whether defendant would shoot up people on a daily basis, the court allowed Beltran to testify she never saw him do that.

Defendant maintains Beltran's testimony about not having seen him "'suit up in the morning with a gun and go out and shoot up a bunch of people'" was sandwiched between prosecutorial objections sustained by the . . . court" such that "[t]he clear impression on the jury was that this evidence was not to be considered." But "in the absence of an affirmative showing that the jury misunderstood the ruling [in that manner], we cannot presume that the rights of the defendant were prejudiced thereby . . . ." (People v. Garcia (1927) 83 Cal.App. 463, 468.) Moreover, even if the

Page 6