California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Wiggins, C071601 (Cal. App. 2014):
"Evidence is not inadmissible under section 352 unless the probative value is 'substantially' outweighed by the probability of a 'substantial danger' of undue prejudice or other statutory counterweights." (People v. Holford (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 155, 167.) " 'Evidence is prejudicial within the meaning of Evidence Code section 352 if it " 'uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual' " [citation] or if it would cause the jury to " ' "prejudg[e]" a person or cause on the basis of extraneous factors' " [citation].' [Citation.]" (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1331.) Stated another way, "[e]vidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative [citation] if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable 'risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome' [citation]." (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724.) However, a defendant cannot merely complain that the uncharged misconduct evidence damages his case. " '[All] evidence which tends to prove guilt is prejudicial or damaging to the defendant's case. The stronger the evidence, the more it is "prejudicial." The "prejudice" referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual which has very little effect on the issues.' " (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638, italics added.)
Page 19
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.