In what circumstances will the trial court exclude evidence of third-party culpability for abuse of discretion?

We review the trial court's exclusion of evidence of third-party culpability for abuse of discretion. (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1242 (Prince).) "'[T]hird party culpability evidence is admissible if it is "capable of raising a reasonable doubt of [the] defendant's guilt," but . . . "[w]e do not require that any evidence, however remote, must be admitted to show a third party's possible culpability. . . . [E]vidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant's guilt: there must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime."'" [Citations.] "'[I]n making these assessments, "courts should simply treat third-party culpability evidence like any other evidence: if relevant it is admissible ([Evid. Code,] 350) unless its

Page 21

probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of undue delay, prejudice or confusion [citation]."'" (Ibid.)