section 352 ultimate object in California

2024(People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 924 [“It is well settled that counsel is not ineffective in failing to make an objection when the objection would have likely been overruled by the trial court”]; see also People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 587 [“[T]here is no merit to defendant’s alternative contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object under Evidence Code section 352.

2022(See People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 587 [“[T]here is no merit to defendant’s alternative contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object under Evidence Code section 352.

2014Section 352 provides in full: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” “The two crucial components of section 352 are ‘discretion,’ because the trial court's resolution of such matters is entitled to deference, and ‘undue prejudice,’ because the ultimate object of the section 352 weighing process is a fair trial.” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.A

2014Code] section 352 are ‘discretion,’ because the trial court's resolution of such matters is entitled to deference, and ‘undue prejudice,’ because the ultimate object of the section 352 weighing process is a fair trial.” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 736 (Harris).) “ ‘The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under . . . section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.’ [Citations.] ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis o

2014Section 352 provides in full: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” “The two crucial components of section 352 are ‘discretion,’ because the trial court's resolution of such matters is entitled to deference, and ‘undue prejudice,’ because the ultimate object of the section 352 weighing process is a fair trial.” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.A

2014Code] section 352 are ‘discretion,’ because the trial court's resolution of such matters is entitled to deference, and ‘undue prejudice,’ because the ultimate object of the section 352 weighing process is a fair trial.” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 727, 736 (Harris).) “ ‘The prejudice which exclusion of evidence under . . . section 352 is designed to avoid is not the prejudice or damage to a defense that naturally flows from relevant, highly probative evidence.’ [Citations.] ‘Rather, the statute uses the word in its etymological sense of “prejudging” a person or cause on the basis o

2014Section 352 provides in full: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” “The two crucial components of section 352 are ‘discretion,’ because the trial court's resolution of such matters is entitled to deference, and ‘undue prejudice,’ because the ultimate object of the section 352 weighing process is a fair trial.” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.A

2013Evidence Code section 352 (§ 352) provides in full: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” “The two crucial components of section 352 are ‘discretion,’ because the trial court's resolution of such matters is entitled to deference, and ‘undue prejudice,’ because the ultimate object of the section 352 weighing process is a fair trial.” (Harris, su

2014Section 352 provides in full: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” “The two crucial components of section 352 are ‘discretion,’ because the trial court's resolution of such matters is entitled to deference, and ‘undue prejudice,’ because the ultimate object of the section 352 weighing process is a fair trial.” (People v. Harris (1998) 60 Cal.A

2013Evidence Code section 352 (§ 352) provides in full: “The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” “The two crucial components of section 352 are ‘discretion,’ because the trial court's resolution of such matters is entitled to deference, and ‘undue prejudice,’ because the ultimate object of the section 352 weighing process is a fair trial.” (Harris, su

2026Pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, “[a] trial court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by concerns of undue prejudice, confusion, or consumption of time.” (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 490 (Scott).) “Prejudice for purposes of [Evidence Code] section 352 refers to evidence that tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant.” (People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 840 .) Carter contends that allowing the prosecutor to repeat the phrasing concerning A. Doe’s ability to feel Carter’s penis while she was laying face do

2025The trial court had generally overruled appellant’s objections to the testimony about 24 appellant’s prior misconduct, and the jury instruction it gave properly instructed the jury on the purposes for which it could consider such evidence.8 (Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 443 [we presume the jury followed instructions].) Appellant’s argument also fails to recognize that the issue of appellant’s credibility— with regard to his claim that he hit the guard by accident or in self-defense—and the issue of his “intent” are “inseparably intertwined.” (Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87, 118

2024Counsel is not required to proffer futile objections”]; People v. Pierce (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1337 [failure to make a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance].) Defendant argues that, if defense counsel had made an Evidence Code section 352 objection, the trial court would have at least “sanitized” evidence of the robbery conviction.

2024(People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 924 [“It is well settled that counsel is not ineffective in failing to make an objection when the objection would have likely been overruled by the trial court”]; see also People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 587 [“[T]here is no merit to defendant’s alternative contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object under Evidence Code section 352.

2021Counsel is not required to proffer futile objections”].) “A prosecutor is given wide latitude to vigorously argue his or her case and to make fair comment upon the evidence, including reasonable inferences or deductions that may be drawn from the evidence.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 726 .) In so doing, a prosecutor “may draw from matters that are not in evidence, but which are common knowledge or are illustrations drawn from common experience, history or literature.” (People v. Ghobrial (2018) 5 Cal.5th 250, 289 , internal quotations marks omitted.) “ ‘When attacking the prosec

2021Counsel is not required to proffer futile objections”].) “A prosecutor is given wide latitude to vigorously argue his or her case and to make fair comment upon the evidence, including reasonable inferences or deductions that may be drawn from the evidence.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 726 .) In so doing, a prosecutor “may draw from matters that are not in evidence, but which are common knowledge or are illustrations drawn from common experience, history or literature.” (People v. Ghobrial (2018) 5 Cal.5th 250, 289 , internal quotations marks omitted.) “ ‘When attacking the prosec

2014(See People v. 15 Morales (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 259, 266 [“Failure to object to relevant evidence . . . is not the mark of inadequate representation nor incompetent counsel.”].) We also conclude that counsel was not deficient in failing to object to the evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 352.

2013(People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 230-231 ; see also Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 726, 749 [objection on relevance grounds to question concerning whether company had terminated employment of the plaintiff’s predecessor did not preserve unasserted objection that evidence should have been excluded under section 352].) Here, each of defense counsel’s three objections to the evidence of J.D.’s seizures and recent move to San Diego—made during the direct examination of Mother—was based on the assertion that the evidence was not relevant.