Is relevant evidence that raises a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt admissible?

"Any relevant evidence that raises a reasonable doubt as to a defendant's guilt, 'including evidence tending to show that a party other than the defendant committed the offense charged,' is admissible. [Citations.] But 'evidence 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.' [Citation.] Relevant evidence may be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 if it creates a substantial danger of undue consumption of time or of prejudicing, confusing, or misleading the jury. [Citation.]" (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 577-578, quoting People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 829, italics added.)

Because "'evidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person'" does not "'suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant's guilt,'" it follows that the foregoing rule does not make such evidence admissible. (People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 578.)