Is a judge obligated to reconsider or amend a finding of admissibility, or is it required to do so, because of the fact that prior testimony was not available to the trial court at or before the time of the ruling?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jones, B284286 (Cal. App. 2019):
as to admissibility, because these factors were not presented to the trial court at or before the time of its ruling. " 'To do otherwise would require us to hold the trial court to an impossible standard.' [Citation.]" (People v. Fruits, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 208.) Nor was the trial court obligated to reconsider, sua sponte, its ruling merely because of that subsequent testimony. (See People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 189-190.)
"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
Does the "right ruling, wrong reasoning" rule apply to an evidentiary ruling that required the trial court to make findings of fact? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
Does a rule requiring substitution of a new class representative after a ruling that the named plaintiff is inadequate be inconsistent with the general principle that a trial court has discretion in deciding whether to permit an amended complaint? (California, United States of America)
Does the fact that expert testimony may be available at trial require defense counsel to consult the experts or present their testimony at trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for review of a trial court ruling on the admissibility of evidence in limine or during trial? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the rule that prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or if the public interest requires that the prior determination not to be foreclosed? (California, United States of America)
What findings must a trial court make to satisfy the "detailed findings of fact" requirement in subdivision (a)(2) of section 6305 of the California Child Protection Act? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a trial judge to proceed with the trial of a defendant under section 1368 of the California Mental Health Act if the trial judge receives the reports of two psychiatrists? (California, United States of America)
Is a witness's testimony from an earlier proceeding admissible under the prior testimony exception to the hearsay rule? (California, United States of America)
Is a trial court ruling that resolves conflicts in the evidence entitled to greater deference from a reviewing court than a similar finding in a similar case? (California, United States of America)
