What is the test for presenting evidence of third party culpability in a criminal case?

" 'A criminal defendant has a right to present evidence of third party culpability if it is capable of raising a reasonable doubt about his own guilt. This rule does "not require that any evidence, however remote, must be admitted to show a third party's possible culpability . . . . [E]vidence 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.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Panah

Page 28

(2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 481 (Panah); see also People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 581 (Geier).) " '[T]he evidence [has] to be relevant under Evidence Code section 350, and its probative value [can]not be "substantially outweighed by the risk of undue delay, prejudice, or confusion" under Evidence Code section 352.' [Citation.]" (Geier, supra, at p. 581.) On appeal, "we review the ruling, not the court's reasoning and, if the ruling was correct on any ground, we affirm." (Id. at p. 582.)