California Codes
Cal. Evidence Code § 353 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless:
(a)There appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion; and
(b)The court which passes upon the effect of the error or errors is of the opinion that the admitted evidence should have been excluded on the ground stated and that the error or errors complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,374
cases (447 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: People v. Partida, 122 P.3d 765 (Cal. 2005).
People v. Partida, 122 P.3d 765 (Cal. 2005). “"Evidence Code section 353 does not exalt form over substance.”
People v. Rodrigues, 885 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1994). “Not only was this claim waived by the failure to assert it below (Evid. Code, § 353), it is without merit. (9) Where the witness is available at trial for cross-examination, the principal danger of admitting hearsay evidence is not present (see People v.”
People v. Morris, 807 P.2d 949 (Cal. 1991). “) Evidence Code section 353 does not exalt form over substance.”
People v. Doolin, 198 P.3d 11 (Cal. 2009). “(Evid. Code, § 353.) In any event, on the merits, we conclude all of the items seized were probative of defendant’s identity as the assailant, his intent to till, and his motive for the shootings.”
People v. Clark, 372 P.3d 811 (Cal. 2016). “(Evid. Code, § 353.) Even if defendant did not forfeit his claim, it fails on the merits.”
People v. Bryant, Smith & Wheeler, 334 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2014). “28 In the face of a timely objection (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a)), relevant evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will require undue time consumption, will confuse or mislead the jury, or poses a…”
People v. Lindberg, 190 P.3d 664 (Cal. 2008). “(a) [a judgment shall not be reversed because of the erroneous admission of evidence unless there was a timely objection "so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection"].) Even were we to assume that defendant properly preserved this issue, we would reject his…”
People v. Farnam, 47 P.3d 988 (Cal. 2002). “Assuming, for purposes of argument, that Erwin’s testimony concerning the computerized fingerprint matching program had little or no relevance, the testimony presented little, if any, potential for prejudice.”
People v. Seumanu, 355 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2015). “The People argue defendant forfeited the claim by failing to object (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a); People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.”
People v. Seaton, 28 P.3d 175 (Cal. 2001). “Defendant argues the photograph was irrelevant and therefore should not have been admitted. He has not preserved the right to raise this contention on appeal, because he did not object to admission of the photograph at trial.”
People v. Homick, 289 P.3d 791 (Cal. 2012). “(Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.”
People v. Sully, 812 P.2d 163 (Cal. 1991). “I, § 15) the admission of Livingston's testimony that Michael Francis emerged from the back room of the warehouse and exclaimed that defendant had smashed Barrett's face with a sledgehammer.”
— Cal. Evidence Code § 353(a) — 4 cases
Gregory Demetrulias v. Ron Davis, 14 F.4th 898 (9th Cir. 2021).
Solomon v. 404 N. Maple Dr. CA2/7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
People v. Lang CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).
Smith Lillis Pitha LLP v. Colburn CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.