California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bradford, 15 Cal.4th 1229, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259 (Cal. 1997):
Having concluded the trial court correctly determined the issue of cross-admissibility, we need not analyze the other factors described above. (See People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th 668, 721, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) Nonetheless, we observe that even had defendant demonstrated that the evidence would not have been cross-admissible, he has failed to establish prejudice. He has not shown that one of the offenses was significantly more likely to inflame the jury against defendant, since the murders were similar in nature and equally gruesome. [15 Cal.4th 1318] Defendant has not shown that evidence of guilt was significantly stronger in one case, creating the danger that that case would be used to bolster the weaker case, because the prosecutor's evidence was nearly equal in strength as to both offenses. (See Ibid.)
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.