Does the Attorney General have a duty to preserve and preserve a claim under California Evidence Code?

The Attorney General asserts that defendant failed to preserve this claim under Evidence Code section 353, subdivision (a), because he failed to object to the trial court's ruling on the matter. This is incorrect. Evidence Code section 353 requires "an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence" as a condition precedent to setting aside an "erroneous admission of evidence." (Italics added.) Defendant claims an erroneous exclusion of evidence. Our review of allegedly erroneous exclusions of evidence is governed by Evidence Code section 354. " As a condition precedent to challenging the exclusion of proffered testimony, Evidence Code section 354, subdivision (a), requires the proponent make known to the court the "substance, purpose, and relevance of the excluded evidence...." " (People v. Morrison (2004) 34 Cal.4th 698, 711, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 101 P.3d 568.) The record shows that defendant did so.

[365 P.3d 256]