deferential abuse of discretion standard in California

2026(Mendoza, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 298.) We similarly “review a trial court’s ruling on a Romero motion under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, which requires the defendant to show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary.” (People v. Avila, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 1140; Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 375 .) “That deferential standard asks not whether the trial court’s decision was correct in the sense that it is the same decision we would have made; rather, it asks whether the court’s decision falls within the range of outcomes permitted by the controlling

2026(Mendoza, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 298.) We similarly “review a trial court’s ruling on a Romero motion under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, which requires the defendant to show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary.” (People v. Avila, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 1140; Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 375 .) “That deferential standard asks not whether the trial court’s decision was correct in the sense that it is the same decision we would have made; rather, it asks whether the court’s decision falls within the range of outcomes permitted by the controlling

2026Standard of Review “The standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test.” (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 .) We must uphold a trial court’s custody order if correct “on any basis, regardless of whether such basis was actually invoked.” (Ibid.) “The trial court is always bound to make a custody decision based upon the child’s best interest.” (Ragghanti v. Reyes (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 989, 996 .) In making an initial permanent custody determination, the court must look to all the circumstances bearing on the child’s be

2026Standard of Review “The standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test.” (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 .) We must uphold a trial court’s custody order if correct “on any basis, regardless of whether such basis was actually invoked.” (Ibid.) “The trial court is always bound to make a custody decision based upon the child’s best interest.” (Ragghanti v. Reyes (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 989, 996 .) In making an initial permanent custody determination, the court must look to all the circumstances bearing on the child’s be

2026(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 158 ; Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 530 .) In determining whether to strike a prior conviction, the court “must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [three strikes] scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” (Williams, at p. 161; ac

2026In ruling on a Romero motion, the court considers “whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161 .) A trial court’s decision not to strike a prior conviction is reviewed under the deferential abuse of disc

2023A defendant has the “burden of establishing inadequate representation and resulting prejudice as to each claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 663 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) Moreover, “[a] defendant must prove prejudice that is a ‘“demonstrable reality,” not simply speculation.’ [Citation.] Prejudice requires ‘a reasonable probability that a more favorable outcome would have resulted . . . , i.e., a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Fai

2022(Hughes, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 283; see People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1068 [“In reviewing rulings on motions for mistrial, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard.”].) Moreover, a prosecutor’s violation of section 1054.1 is subject “to the harmless error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , and thus is a basis for reversal only where it is reasonably probable, by state-law standards, 32 that the [violation] affected the trial result.” (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1135, fn. 13 , disapproved on other grounds in People v

2025When determining the best interest of the child, relevant factors include the health, safety and welfare of the child, any history of abuse by one parent against the child or the other parent, and the nature and amount of contact with the parents. [Citation.]” (Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255 (Montenegro).) An appellate court reviews custody and visitation orders under “the deferential abuse of discretion test. [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 .) Factual findings made by the trial court concerning custody and visitation orders are reviewed for subs

2025(See Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 258 .) 5 (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 362 .) “A custody decision allowing one parent to move the children out of the state necessarily interferes with the other parent’s ability to have frequent and continuing contact with them” and “ ‘is one of the most serious decisions a family law court is required to make.’ ” (Seagondollar, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1119 .) “The standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test. [Citation.] The precise measure is whether the trial cour

2025A motion for a mistrial should be granted when a defendant’s chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.” (People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th 175, 198 [cleaned up].) “[W]e use the deferential abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court ruling denying a mistrial.” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555 .) There was no abuse of discretion.

2025The trial court “should grant a mistrial only when a party’s chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555 .) “In reviewing rulings on motions for mistrial, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.] ‘A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial m

2024Code, § 352.) This is an exercise of discretion we review under “the deferential abuse of discretion standard” (People v. Kipp (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1121 ), and we will not disturb the trial court’s decision unless it was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

2023Evidence only creates ‘undue prejudice’ if the evidence tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant, and the evidence has relatively little importance based on the specific issues involved in the particular case. [Citation.] ‘The weighing process under section 352 depends upon the trial court's consideration of the unique facts and issues of each case, rather than upon the mechanical application of automatic rules.’” (Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 174.) “We apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court's ruling under Evidence Code section 35

2025A. Standard of Review “In general, ‘a motion for mistrial should be granted only when “ ‘a party’s chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 121 .) “ ‘A trial court should declare a mistrial only “ ‘if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.; accord, People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997 , 1126.) “ ‘[W]e use the deferential abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court[’s] ruling denying a mistrial.’ ” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 990 ; accord,

2024Standard of Review “In general, ‘a motion for mistrial should be granted only when “ ‘a party’s chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Bell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 70, 121 .) “ ‘A trial court should declare a mistrial only “ ‘if the court is 18. apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.; accord, People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th at 997, 1126.) “ ‘[W]e use the deferential abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court[’s] ruling denying a mistrial.’ ” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 990 ; accor

2024“A defendant is entitled to have appointed counsel discharged upon a showing that counsel is not providing adequate representation or that counsel and defendant have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result.” (People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1244-1245 .) “We review a trial court’s decision declining to relieve appointed counsel under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” (Id. at p. 1245.) Denial of a motion pursuant to Marsden “ ‘ “is not an abuse of discretion unless the defendant has shown that a failure to repla

2024(Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 126 .) “A defendant is entitled to have appointed counsel discharged upon a showing that counsel is not providing adequate representation or that counsel and defendant have become embroiled in such an irreconcilable conflict that ineffective representation is likely to result.” (People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229 , 1244–1245.) The decision about whether appointed counsel should be discharged is reviewed by us under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.

2022It simply means a reasonable chance, which is more than an abstract possibility.” 15 Analysis Under section 1181, subdivision 8, a defendant may move for a new trial “[w]hen new evidence is discovered material to the defendant, and which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial.” “ ‘ “ ‘We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’ [Citations.] ‘ “A trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the r

2021Standard of Review and Applicable Legal Principles “ ‘ “ ‘We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’ [Citations.] ‘ “A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. McCurdy (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1063, 1108 (McCurdy); People v. Delgado (1993) 5 Cal.4th 312, 328 (Delgado).) “In ruling on a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the tria

2025As previously noted, “the decision to terminate parental rights lies in the first instance within the discretion of the trial court, ‘and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.’” (In re Noreen G. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382 .) “When applying the deferential abuse of discretion standard, ‘the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.’” (In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 123 .) In Daniel M., su

2023In mother’s view, termination of her parental rights is not in the minor’s best interest because the minor will never have contact with mother and will never meet her baby brother. “ ‘[T]he decision to terminate parental rights lies in the first instance within the discretion of the trial court, “and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.” ’ [Citation.]” (Adoption of A.B., supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 924 .) “When applying the deferential abuse of discretion standard, ‘the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law ar

2026Applicable Law and Standard of Review “To require the grant of a mistrial motion, the risk of prejudice must be incurable 19 by admonition or instruction.” (People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 575 (Elliott).) That is, “[a] trial court should grant a motion for mistrial ‘only when “ ‘a party’s chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged’ ” ’ [citation]. …” (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 573 .) “Because the trial court is generally better able than an appellate court to make this determination, a ruling denying a motion for mistrial is reviewed under the deferen

2023B “A trial court should grant a mistrial only when a party’s chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged,” and we apply “the deferential abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court ruling denying a mistrial.” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555 (Bolden).) “ ‘Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.’ ” (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 573 (Avila).) “A witness’s volunteered statement can, under some circumstanc

2026(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 158 ; Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 530 .) In determining whether to strike a prior conviction, the court “must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [three strikes] scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” (Williams, at p. 161; ac

2026(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 158 ; Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 530 .) In determining whether to strike a prior conviction, the court “must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [three strikes] scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” (Williams, at p. 161; ac

2026Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.’” (People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1068 .) In reviewing a ruling on a motion for mistrial, we apply “the deferential abuse of discretion standard.” (Ibid.) C.

2025The trial court “should grant a mistrial only when a party’s chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged.” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555 .) “In reviewing rulings on motions for mistrial, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.] ‘A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial m

2015Standard of review Generally, "[w]e review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard." (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) The Cox court explained that "'"[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mis

2015Standard of review Generally, "[w]e review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard." (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) The Cox court explained that "'"[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mis

2024A. Standard of Review “ ‘ “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” [Citations.] “ ‘A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Lightsey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 668, 729 ; see also People v. McCurdy (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1063, 1108 .) Likewise, the court’s decision to exclude evidence is committed to its discretion, so we will not disturb a lower court’s

2022It simply means a reasonable chance, which is more than an abstract possibility.” 15 Analysis Under section 1181, subdivision 8, a defendant may move for a new trial “[w]hen new evidence is discovered material to the defendant, and which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial.” “ ‘ “ ‘We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’ [Citations.] ‘ “A trial court's ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the r

2025In that circumstance, ‘[e]vidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inconsistent statement or other conduct.’ ” (Id. at pp. 922‒923.) “A challenge to admission of prior sexual misconduct under Evidence Code sections 1108 and 352 is reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard and will be reversed ‘only if the c

2023The factors affecting the prejudicial effect of uncharged acts include whether the uncharged acts resulted in criminal convictions and whether the evidence of uncharged acts is stronger or more inflammatory than the evidence of the charged offenses.” [Citation.] “The weighing process under [Evidence Code] section 352 depends upon the trial court’s consideration of the unique facts and issues of each case, rather than upon the mechanical application of automatic rules.” ’ ” (People v. Robertson (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 965, 990-991 .) “A challenge to admission of prior sexual misconduct under Evi

2026(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295 , 318–319 [reviewing court cannot substitute its decision for that of the trial court when the facts can support more than one reasonable inference]; In re N.M. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1090 , 1094 [same].] “ ‘When applying the deferential abuse of discretion standard, “the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the 11 facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.” ’ ” (In re Maya L., supra, at p. 102 .) B.

2021(Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255 .) Trial courts and families are provided wide discretion in choosing a parenting plan without any presumptions or preferences for or against joint custody. (§ 3040, subd. (c).) “The standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test. [Citation.] The precise measure is whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the order in question advanced the ‘best interest’ of the child.” (In re Marriage of Burgess 21 (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 (Burgess).) “ ‘Where minds may reasonably diff

2026Thus, the grant of a section 1181[, subdivision] (6) motion is the equivalent of a mistrial caused by a hung jury. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “A trial court has broad discretion on ruling on a motion for a new trial, and there is a strong presumption that it properly exercised that discretion.” (People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 524 .) “ ‘ “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” [Citations.] “ ‘A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not d

2024A. Standard of Review “ ‘ “We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” [Citations.] “ ‘A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Lightsey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 668, 729 ; see also People v. McCurdy (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1063, 1108 .) Likewise, the court’s decision to exclude evidence is committed to its discretion, so we will not disturb a lower court’s

2025I, supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at p. 395.) “ ‘We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of- discretion standard.’ ” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 140 .) The ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless error was manifest and unmistakable.

2023Standard of Review “ ‘We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’ [Citations.] ‘ “A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion.” ’ ” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 140 .) 2.

2026(People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 985-986 .) “‘In reviewing rulings on motions for mistrial, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citation.] “A mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions. [Citation.]”’” (People v. Penunuri (2018) 5 Cal.5th 126, 149 ; People v. Collins (2010) 49 Cal.4th 175, 198 .) Ap

2024DISCUSSION “We review a ruling on a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 210 , citing People v. McLain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 113 ; see also People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900 , 985–986 [“A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court”].) Trial courts should grant a motion for mistrial only where an error results in prejudice that cannot be cured through admonition or instruction.

2025Applicable law. “‘“‘“We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” [Citations.] “‘A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion.’”’”’” (People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 957 (Hoyt); see People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1 , 88.)4 “Usually, ‘ineffective assistance [of counsel claims are] more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus proceeding.’ [Citation.] But . . .

2024The Attorney General argues, also relying on Callahan, at pages 209–212, along with People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1265 (Ault), and People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892 , 956–962 (Hoyt), that we apply a deferential abuse of discretion standard.

2022“A trial court should grant a mistrial only when a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged, and we use the deferential abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court ruling denying a mistrial.” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 555 .) 5 “Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.” (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854 .) “Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the court exceeds the bounds of rea

2021“A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. [The Supreme Court] [has] explained that ‘[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] 7 Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.’ (People v. Haskett (1982) 30 Cal.3d 841, 854 .)” (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 985-986 .) “ ‘A trial court should grant a mistrial only when a p