How has section 352 of the California Criminal Code been interpreted and what is the effect of section 352 on a defendant's right to a fair trial and due process?

Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the threat evidence under section 352 or thereby violate defendant's constitutional rights. For reasons already expressed, the evidence was highly probative of the victim's credibility. And contrary to the conclusory assertion in defendant's appellate briefing, this probative value was not "clearly outweighed by the potential for prejudice, undue consumption of time, and confusion it would create in the jury's mind." Indeed, defendant supplies no specific argument with respect to how these statutory counterweights substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence. His assertion they do is therefore forfeited. (See People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 881.) For the same reason, we also consider forfeited

Page 17

defendant's equally conclusory assertion his "constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process were violated." (Ibid.)