What is the impact of section 352 of the California Criminal Code on a defendant's ability to present his defense?

Here, defendant clearly was not precluded from presenting his defense. That the trial court exercised its discretionary power to exclude some evidence does not mean there was any constitutional infirmity in its rulings, as they were neither arbitrary nor constituted anything close to a blanket exclusion of any given subject. (See People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 607.) Accordingly, were we to find error (which we do not), we would conclude any possible relevance was so marginal that (1) the trial court would have acted well within its discretion in excluding the evidence pursuant to section 352, and (2) it is not reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the evidence been admitted.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude his statement to police. He claims the prosecution failed to demonstrate (1) valid waivers under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) and (2) the statement was voluntary. We reject the first claim, find the second claim forfeited, and further conclude defendant has not shown trial counsel was ineffective in that regard.