California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Nabong, A132451 (Cal. App. 2013):
" '[A]n appellate court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review to any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of evidence, including one that turns on the relative probativeness and prejudice of the evidence in question [citations]. Evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative (see Evid. Code, 352) if, broadly stated, it poses an intolerable "risk to the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the outcome" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 805.) "The court's exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of the evidence clearly outweighs its probative value. [Citations.]"
Page 12
(People v. D'Arcy (2010) 48 Cal.4th 257, 298.) "The admission of gang evidence over an Evidence Code section 352 objection will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court's decision exceeds the bounds of reason. [Citation.]" (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1369.)
In assessing prejudice, we must remember that "[t]he prejudice which exclusion of evidence under Evidence Code section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence. '[A]ll evidence which tends to prove guilt is prejudicial or damaging to the defendant's case. The stronger the evidence, the more it is "prejudicial." The "prejudice" referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues . . . .' " (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638.)
1. Background
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.