California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Flores, C053956 (Cal. App. 1/31/2008), C053956 (Cal. App. 2008):
The trial court may exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." (Evid. Code, 352.) "Trial courts have broad discretion to weigh the prejudicial impact of testimony against its probative value." (People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 83.)
"`"The prejudice which [section 352] is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence." [Citations.] "Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of `prejudging' a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors."' [Citation.] Painting a person faithfully is not, of itself, unfair." (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 737.)
"Relevant factors in determining prejudice include whether the prior acts of domestic violence were more inflammatory than the charged conduct, the possibility the jury might confuse the prior acts with the charged acts, how recent were the prior acts, and whether the defendant had already been convicted and punished for the prior offense(s)." (People v. Rucker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1119.)
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.