What is the test of "abuse of discretion" in determining the admissibility of evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hernandez, B231493 (Cal. App. 2012):
"On appeal, we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review to any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of evidence." (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1140.) "A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling 'fall[s] "outside the bounds of reason."' [Citations.]" (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 714.)
Page 8
"'"Only relevant evidence is admissible [citations], and all relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded under the federal or California Constitution or by statute. [Citations.] Relevant evidence is defined in Evidence Code section 210 as evidence 'having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.' The test of relevance is whether the evidence tends '"logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference" to establish material facts . . . . [Citations.]' [Citation.] The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence [citations] . . . . [Citations.]" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1166-1167.)
"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.
