Is a court's ruling admitting evidence of other crimes reviewable for abuse of discretion?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Crawford, B238023 (Cal. App. 2013):
"A trial court's ruling admitting evidence of other crimes is reviewable for abuse of discretion." (People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 617.)
Page 11
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
Other Questions
Is a court's ruling admitting evidence under section 352 and 1108 reviewed for abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)
How does the Court of Appeal review a trial court's ruling to admit evidence over defendant's objection based on evidence section 352? (California, United States of America)
When will a court not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence under Evidence Code section 352 of the California Evidence Code? (California, United States of America)
Does the Court of Appeal have discretion to admit evidence of abuse of power or abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)
In reviewing a lower court's ruling for abuse of power, does the court review the evidence or evaluate the credibility of witnesses? (California, United States of America)
Is a trial court's exercise of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence reviewable for abuse? (California, United States of America)
Is a court's ruling excluding third party culpability evidence reviewed for an abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)
Is a court's decision not to admit or exclude evidence reviewable for abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)
What is the abuse of discretion standard of review applicable to any trial court ruling on the admissibility of evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for abuse of discretion in the context of a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence? (California, United States of America)
