section 352 exercise of discretion in California

2026The court denied Brown’s motion, ruling that the convictions involved moral turpitude, went “straight to the heart of her credibility,” and were not “too remote” or “too prejudicial.” “A witness may be impeached with any prior conduct involving moral turpitude whether or not it resulted in a felony conviction, subject to the trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352.” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 (Clark).) “Moral turpitude is defined as the ‘general readiness to do evil.’” (People v. Feaster (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091 , italics omitted.) “[M]ora

2026The prosecutor noted that Jenkins had “an open [section] 25850, which I believe is possession of unregistered firearm either concealed or in a vehicle … I believe he’s being diverted on that.” The trial court granted the People’s motion because Jenkins had not been convicted of violating section 25850 12 and, in any event, it did not think the pending charge “necessarily reflects upon the witness’s moral turpitude.” Parties may impeach witnesses with “any prior conduct involving moral turpitude whether or not it resulted in a felony conviction, subject to the trial court’s exercise of discreti

2023Code, § 788.) But “when [Evidence Code] sections 788 and 352 are read together they clearly provide discretion to the trial judge to exclude evidence of prior felony convictions when their probative 11 value on credibility is outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice.” ( Beagle, supra, at p. 453 .) In exercising its discretion under Evidence Code section 352, a trial court should consider several factors, “namely, (1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integrity; (2) whether it is near or remote in time; (3) whether it was suffered for the same or substantially similar conduc

2023(People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1226 ; People v. Morrison (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 158, 164 .) A court may also exercise its discretion under section 352 to exclude evidence of prior convictions or, as the trial court did here, to sanitize the descriptions of prior convictions where the nature of the unsanitized prior convictions would be more prejudicial than probative of the witness’s credibility (Dalton, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 214 ; People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 305-306 ; People v. Massey (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 819, 825 ), such as where the impeaching offenses are similar o

2025(People v. Cadogan (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1514 (Cadogan).) This is because “ ‘a misdemeanor conviction comes within the statutory rule of 15 inadmissible hearsay.’ ”6 (Cadogan, at p. 1514, quoting Wheeler, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 298-299.) Section 788 of the Evidence Code treats felony convictions differently, however, allowing their use for impeachment through “examination of the witness or by the record of the judgment,” subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.

2025(See People v. Mullens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 648, 659 [“Error in the admission or exclusion of 8 evidence following an exercise of discretion under section 352 is tested for prejudice under the Watson harmless error test”].) Evidence Code Section 352 Evidence that a sexual assault victim has made a prior report of molestation or rape is relevant to the victim’s credibility, but only if the prior allegation is “proven to be false.” (People v. Miranda (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1424 ; accord, People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1097 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Black (20

2023In applying section 352, “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging.” ’ ” (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638 .) In exercising its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 when determining whether to admit a prior conviction for impeachment purposes, the trial court should consider “ ‘(1) whether the prior conviction reflects adversely on an individual’s honesty or veracity; (2) the nearness or remoteness in time of a prior conviction; (3) whether the prior conviction is for the same or substantially similar conduct to the charged offense; and (4) what the effect will be if the de

2022(People v. Hernandez (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 953, 966 .) “We review a challenge to a trial court’s decision to admit [this] evidence for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 531 .) “A trial court’s exercise of its discretion under section 352 ‘ “must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” ’ ” (People v. Brown (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1337 .) 12 In applying section 352, “ ‘prejudicial’ ” is not synonymous wit

2005Although, in the interest of creating a clearer record, the court could have been more explicit in setting forth its reasoning in denying defendant’s motions and overruling defense objections relating to the challenged evidence (see People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 25 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d 468 ] [“the record must affirmatively show that the trial judge did [affirmatively] weigh prejudice against probative value”]), we are persuaded that the court engaged in a deliberative weighing process and acted within its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 in admitting the photographic an

2005Although, in the interest of creating a clearer record, the court could have been more explicit in setting forth its reasoning in denying defendant’s motions and overruling defense objections relating to the challenged evidence (see People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 25 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d 468 ] [“the record must affirmatively show that the trial judge did [affirmatively] weigh prejudice against probative value”]), we are persuaded that the court engaged in a deliberative weighing process and acted within its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 in admitting the photographic an

2023In such a circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood the jury will use it for an illegitimate purpose.” ’ ” (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 490-491 .) “[T]he trial court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether the probative value of particular evidence is outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion or consumption of time.” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124 .) Accordingly, the court’s exercise of its discretion pursuant to section 352 to exclude evidence will not be reversed on appeal, absent a showing that the cou

2021(People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124-1125 ; People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867, 880-881 ; People v. Adams (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 791, 799 ; People v. Cordova (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 665, 670 .) ‘The [trial] court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court clearly abused its discretion, e.g., when the prejudicial effect of the evidence clearly outweighed its probative value.’ (People v. Brown (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1396 .)” (People v. Jennings, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1314-1315.) The record here demonstrates th

2025A Legal Standards “Only relevant evidence is admissible at trial. [Citation.] Under Evidence Code section 210, relevant evidence is evidence ‘having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.’ A trial court has ‘considerable discretion’ in determining the relevance of evidence. [Citation.] Similarly, the court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude even relevant evidence if it determines the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial effects. [Cita

2024Legal Standard “A trial court has ‘considerable discretion’ in determining the relevance of evidence. [Citation.] Similarly, the court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude even relevant evidence if it determines the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial effects. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews a court’s rulings regarding relevancy and admissibility under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] We will not reverse a court’s ruling on such matters unless it is shown ‘ “the trial court exerc

2026In such a circumstance, the evidence is unduly prejudicial because of the substantial likelihood the jury will use it for an illegitimate purpose.” ’ ” (People v. Powell (2018) 6 Cal.5th 136 , 162-163 (Powell).) “ ‘An appellate court reviews a court’s rulings regarding relevancy and admissibility under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse of discretion.’ ” (People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 587 .) Under this standard, “ ‘ “[w]e will not disturb a trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 ‘ “except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrar

2025(McKinnon, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 655 [“On appeal, we review for abuse of discretion a trial court’s ruling on whether evidence is relevant, not unduly prejudicial, and thus admissible.”]; Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 .) Here, we find no abuse of discretion under section 352 in the trial court’s decision to allow Yee to testify as to the contents of the footage.

2025The weighing process under section 352 depends on the trial court’s consideration of the unique facts and issues of each case, rather than upon the mechanical application of automatic rules. [Citations.] We will not overturn or disturb a trial court’s exercise of its discretion under section 352 in the absence of manifest abuse, upon a finding that its decision was palpably 4 Section 787 provides: “Subject to Section 788, evidence of specific instances of his conduct relevant only as tending to prove a trait of his character is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness.” 9

2025(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724 .) A trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 352 will not be overturned “in the absence of manifest abuse, upon a finding that its decision was palpably arbitrary, capricious and patently absurd.” (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1314 (Jennings).) 1.

2025(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724 .) A trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 352 will not be overturned “in the absence of manifest abuse, upon a finding that its decision was palpably arbitrary, capricious and patently absurd.” (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1314 (Jennings).) 1.

2024(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717 (Waidla).) A court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude relevant evidence if it determines the probative value is substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial effects.

1985The Supreme Court was convinced “that section 28 was not intended to abrogate the traditional and inherent power of the trial court to control the admission of evidence by the exercise of discretion to exclude marginally relevant but prejudicial matter—as, indeed, is provided by Evidence Code section 352.” ( 38 Cal.3d at p. 306 .) It was said that there were considerations before the voters “which suggest that the trial court should not be stripped of [prior conviction] discretion.” (Id., at p. 313.) And, “the [Section 28] initiative itself expressed continued trust in the discretion of the tr

1985The Supreme Court was convinced “that section 28 was not intended to abrogate the traditional and inherent power of the trial court to control the admission of evidence by the exercise of discretion to exclude marginally relevant but prejudicial matter—as, indeed, is provided by Evidence Code section 352.” ( 38 Cal.3d at p. 306 .) It was said that there were considerations before the voters “which suggest that the trial court should not be stripped of [prior conviction] discretion.” (Id., at p. 313.) And, “the [Section 28] initiative itself expressed continued trust in the discretion of the tr

2024(People Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 132 .) The trial court also has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence if its probative value substantially outweighs the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.

2014All that is required is that the record demonstrate the trial court understood and fulfilled its responsibilities under . . . section 352.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Jennings, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p.1315; People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 135 .) “No ‘magic words’ are necessary to show an appropriate exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352. [Citation.] What is important is that the record manifest the trial court’s exercise of discretion available under Evidence Code section 352. [Citations.]” (In re Romeo C. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1838, 1845 .) Here, the record reflect

2025(People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 917 [court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 obviated due process challenge to Evidence Code section 1108].) VI.

2024(See People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 587 , 587-588 [‘ “[T]he court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352” ’ and reviewing courts ‘ “ ‘will not disturb a trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 “ ‘except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner 17 that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice’ ” ’ ” ’].)” (People v. Dworak (2021) 11 Cal.5th 881 , 899-900.) “ ‘By reason of [Evidence Code] section 1108, trial courts may no longer deem ‘propensity’ evidence unduly prejudicial pe

2026(Miranda, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 1424 .) Further, under Evidence Code section 352,6 the trial court has discretion “to exclude evidence of prior reports of sexual assault if proof of the falsity of the prior complaint ‘would consume considerable time, and divert the attention of the jury from the case at hand.’ ” (Miranda, at p. 1424, citing People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1097 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) “ ‘[A] trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear s

2025(See People v. Mullens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 648, 659 [“Error in the admission or exclusion of 8 evidence following an exercise of discretion under section 352 is tested for prejudice under the Watson harmless error test”].) Evidence Code Section 352 Evidence that a sexual assault victim has made a prior report of molestation or rape is relevant to the victim’s credibility, but only if the prior allegation is “proven to be false.” (People v. Miranda (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1424 ; accord, People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1097 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Black (20

2026(See People v. Lawson (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 990 , 1003 [Instagram posts claimed to be rap lyrics were highly relevant to the defendant’s motive and not inadmissible under section 352.2]; People v. Zepeda (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 25, 35 [admission of rap lyrics written by the defendant to prove his state of mind was not an abuse of discretion].) “Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under section 352 [or section 352.2], we must also reject defendant’s argument that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial. ‘ “The admission of relevant evidence wil

2025Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under section 352, we also reject defendant’s argument that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial. “ ‘ “The admission of relevant evidence will not offend due process unless the evidence is so prejudicial as to render the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Holford (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 155, 180 .) The proper admission of the challenged evidence did no more than accurately portray defendant’s relationship with the mother.

2026Code, § 352.) “ “ ‘ “ ‘In applying section 352, “prejudicial” is not synonymous with “damaging.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “ ‘[A]ll evidence which tends to prove [a disputed fact] is prejudicial or damaging to the [opposing party]’s case.’ ” ’ [Citation.] The ‘prejudice’ which section 352 seeks to avoid is that which ‘ “ ‘uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the [opponent] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Chhoun (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 29 .) “A trial court’s exercise of discretion under section 352 will be upheld on appeal unless the court

2024Code, § 352.) “‘We have described the “prejudice” referred to in Evidence Code section 352 as characterizing evidence that uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against a party as an individual, while having only slight probative value with regard to the issues.’” (People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 807 .) 15 “‘A trial court has “considerable discretion” in determining the relevance of evidence. [Citation.] Similarly, the court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude even relevant evidence if it determines the probative value of the evidence is substantially ou

2023(Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 197 ; People v. Chavez (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 663, 703 [no requirement that a court conduct a section 402 hearing before exercising discretion under section 352].)15 We conclude that the trial court’s decision to not hold a section 402 hearing was not an abuse of discretion.

2021(People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 197 [decision not to hold section 402 hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion]; People v. Chavez (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 663, 703 [section 402 hearing unnecessary when exercising discretion under section 352]; cf. In re Kathleen W. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 68, 73 [error not to hold a section 402 hearing for matters outside section 403, subdivision (a)].) The items of evidence defendants point to would not have mandated exclusion for additional reasons, too.

2026(People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 558 .) “ ‘ “We will not disturb a trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 ‘ “except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” ’ ” ’ ” ( Miles, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 587-588.) Shove first argues that the trial court erred in precluding evidence of Proulx’s statement that during the first extortion call, Kenneth said something about being “caught” that Shove contends is evidence that Kenneth admitted to being

2026Code, § 350), meaning it must have a “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action” (id., § 210). “ ‘A trial court has “considerable discretion” in determining the relevance of evidence. [Citation.] Similarly, the court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude even relevant evidence if it determines the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial effects.’ ” (People v. Miles (2020) 9 Cal.5th 513, 587 (Miles).) In Hall, we applied these general principles to

2016“Subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (f), ‘authorizes the use of any felony conviction which necessarily involves moral turpitude, even if the immoral trait is one other than dishonesty.’” (People v. Gabriel (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 450, 456 .) But “a witness’ prior conviction should only be admissible for impeachment if the least adjudicated elements of the conviction necessarily involve moral turpitude.” (People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301, 317 .) “Whether a conviction involves such turpitude is

2013(See Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38 (Luce ) [denial of in limine motion to preclude impeachment of the defendant with a prior conviction is not reviewable on appeal if the defendant did not testify]; People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 383-388 (Collins) [prospectively adopting the Luce rule].)” (Ledesma, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 731 .) Furthermore, subject to the trial court‟s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, Proposition 8 “„authorizes the use of any felony conviction which necessarily involves moral turpitude, even if the immoral trait is one other than dishonesty.‟” (

2022(Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 434 .) Defendant further contends that the trial court abused its discretion under section 352 when it admitted the videos because they were cumulative, lacked probative value, and were unduly prejudicial.

2022(Id. at pp. 19, 20.) We review a trial court’s ruling to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 705 ), and we will not disturb a trial court’s exercise of its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 “ ‘unless the probative value of the photographs clearly is outweighed by their prejudicial effect.’ ” (People v. Scheid, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 18 .) 7 Admission of evidence violates federal due process “only if it makes the trial fundamentally unfair.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 .) C.

2026Code, § 352.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.” (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 ; see also People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 (Clark) [witness may be impeached with prior conduct involving moral turpitude even if it did not result in a felony conviction].) “[A] defendant who elects to testify in his own behalf is not entitled to a false aura of veracity.” (People v. Beardslee (1991)

2020(People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) Trial courts have the discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to “‘exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will 6 (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guillen (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 934, 1017 .) Evidence of Hernandez’s expertise in boxing was relevant to dispute Hernandez’s claim he was in fear of Victim.

2022Code, §§ 210, 1101, subd. (b); People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 404 (Ewoldt).) “A trial court has ‘considerable discretion’ in determining the relevance of evidence. [Citation.] Similarly, the court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude even relevant evidence if it determines the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial effects.” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 74 (Merriman).) Evidence Code section 352 “ ‘requires the exclusion of evidence only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its pre

2022Code, §§ 210, 1101, subd. (b); People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 404 (Ewoldt).) “A trial court has ‘considerable discretion’ in determining the relevance of evidence. [Citation.] Similarly, the court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude even relevant evidence if it determines the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial effects.” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 74 (Merriman).) Evidence Code section 352 “ ‘requires the exclusion of evidence only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by its pre

2023Code, § 351.) “A trial court has ‘considerable discretion’ in determining the relevance of evidence. [Citation.] Similarly, the court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude even relevant evidence if it determines the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its possible prejudicial effects. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews a court’s rulings regarding relevancy and admissibility under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 74 .) A court’s ruling will not be reversed on such mat

2022Gillard insists the court’s exclusion of the conviction nevertheless violated his constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and confrontation.8 “ ‘As a general matter, the “[a]pplication of the ordinary rules of evidence . . . does not impermissibly infringe on a defendant’s right to present a defense.” ’ ” (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381 , 427–428.) Similarly, “reliance on Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence of marginal impeachment value that would entail the undue consumption of time generally does not contravene a defendant’s constitutional rights to confrontati

2026Code, § 352.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.” (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 ; see also People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 (Clark) [witness may be impeached with prior conduct involving moral turpitude even if it did not result in a felony conviction].) “[A] defendant who elects to testify in his own behalf is not entitled to a false aura of veracity.” (People v. Beardslee (1991)

2021(Gutierrez, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 89 ; Anderson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 407 [prior felony conviction]; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 (Clark) [other prior misconduct].) Thus, the rule now is that “the conduct underlying a felony conviction is admissible when it is relevant to impeach a witness, unless the trial court finds that it is more prejudicial than probative.” (Gutierrez, at p. 89.) Courts consider “the nearness or remoteness in time of a prior conviction.” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 .) Additionally, “[a] witness may be impeached with any prior c

2026(Miranda, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 1424 .) Further, under Evidence Code section 352,6 the trial court has discretion “to exclude evidence of prior reports of sexual assault if proof of the falsity of the prior complaint ‘would consume considerable time, and divert the attention of the jury from the case at hand.’ ” (Miranda, at p. 1424, citing People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1097 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) “ ‘[A] trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352 will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear s

2025(See People v. Mullens (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 648, 659 [“Error in the admission or exclusion of 8 evidence following an exercise of discretion under section 352 is tested for prejudice under the Watson harmless error test”].) Evidence Code Section 352 Evidence that a sexual assault victim has made a prior report of molestation or rape is relevant to the victim’s credibility, but only if the prior allegation is “proven to be false.” (People v. Miranda (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1424 ; accord, People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1097 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Black (20