defendant absent error in California

2026A “state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson[7] test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ; see People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 924 .) Assuming, as appellant claims, that the 2020 carjacking evidence was inadmissible for the premeditated-murder theory, any error was harmless.

2026(People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 .) Under the Watson test, “[t]he reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (Partida, at p. 439.) C.

2026Instead, “state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ; see People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 .) Under this test, Gonzales has not demonstrated prejudice.

2026“A trial court’s determinations under Evidence Code section 352 do not ordinarily implicate the federal Constitution, and are reviewed under the ‘reasonable probability’ standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 .” (People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 924 .) Under the Watson test, “[t]he reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 .) When applying the Watson standard, “an appellate court may consider, among other things, whether the evidence

2024(See People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428 , 436–437 (Partida) [narrow due process argument may be asserted on appeal if it is predicated on an issue that was raised at trial].) 4 contribute to the verdict.” (Albarran, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 229 ; Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) Absent fundamental unfairness, however, state law error in admitting evidence is reversible only when it is “reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.”3 (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 439 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) H

2021“Absent fundamental unfairness, state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 439 ; People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 .) Erroneous admission of evidence results in an unfair trial “ ‘[o]nly if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence,’ ” and “ ‘[e]ven then, the evidence must “be of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial.” ’ ” (Albarra

2025(People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ; see People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 957 [“because the trial court merely excluded some evidence that could have impeached a complaining witness and did not preclude defendant from presenting a defense, any error would be one of state evidentiary law only”].) C.

2025(People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ; see People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 957 [“because the trial court merely excluded some evidence that could have impeached a complaining witness and did not preclude defendant from presenting a defense, any error would be one of state evidentiary law only”].) C.

2024Appellant also sent messages to S.V. complaining about D.A. being too tired to do sex dates and “messing up [the] program.” “[S]tate law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson[3] test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 439 ; see People v. Homick, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 872 [applying Watson where hearsay evidence was erroneously admitted under the coconspirator hearsay exception].) Appellant argues the alleged evidenti

2024(See People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428 , 436–437 (Partida) [narrow due process argument may be asserted on appeal if it is predicated on an issue that was raised at trial].) 4 contribute to the verdict.” (Albarran, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 229 ; Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) Absent fundamental unfairness, however, state law error in admitting evidence is reversible only when it is “reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.”3 (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 439 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) H

2026A “state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson[7] test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ; see People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 924 .) Assuming, as appellant claims, that the 2020 carjacking evidence was inadmissible for the premeditated-murder theory, any error was harmless.

2026A “state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson[17] test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ; see People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 924 .) Appellant claims the more stringent “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard set forth in Chapman v. California applies because the evidence was so inflammatory and prejudicial that its admission violated due process.

2022(People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 902 (Mendoza); People v. Cunningham (2015) 61 Cal.4th 609, 635 ; People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 532-533 ; see People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 5 818, 836 .) 5 Relying on this court’s opinion in People v. Sanchez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Sanchez), Whitmore contends the harmless error standard does not apply and that the error is subject to per se reversal.

2022(People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 902 (Mendoza); People v. Cunningham (2015) 61 Cal.4th 609, 635 ; People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 532-533 ; see People 11 6 v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) If we were to assume arguendo there was a due process violation of Whitmore’s right to be present, that violation would be reviewed under the Chapman harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

2020(People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 266 (Goldsmith).) “Absent fundamental unfairness, state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict 11 would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 (Partida), citing People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson); People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 468 [applying Watson standard to admission of evidence with insufficient foundation].) c.

2015Harmless Error “Absent fundamental unfairness, state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 , citing People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ; People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 230-231 [applying the Watson test to the admission of hearsay evidence]; People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 468 [applying the Watson test to the admission of evidence without sufficient fo

2014(People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 534 [admission of evidence reviewable for abuse of discretion]; People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 656 [reviewing rebuttal evidence for abuse of discretion].) “A trial court’s discretionary ruling 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. [Citations.]”’” (People v. Williams (2008) 43 Cal.4th 584, 634-635 .) In addition, “state law error in admitting evidence is subject to th

2013(See People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 609 (Gurule) [applying Watson standard]; Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 318-319 [same].) Under the Watson standard, reversal is required only if “it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 439 , citing Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 .) Here, it is not reasonably probable that the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant absent the erroneous admission of her prior section 245 conviction.

2025(See Coneal, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 972.) The question is “ ‘whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.’ ” (People v. Watson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 652, 686 ; see also Hin, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 482-483; Coneal, at p. 972.) To apply this test, we must consider a counterfactual question: what would the jury have done had the court not admitted the rap videos and lyrics?

2025(See Coneal, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 972.) The question is “ ‘whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.’ ” (People v. Watson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 652, 686 ; see also Hin, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 482-483; Coneal, at p. 972.) To apply this test, we must consider a counterfactual question: what would the jury have done had the court not admitted the rap videos and lyrics?

2026“A trial court’s determinations under Evidence Code section 352 do not ordinarily implicate the federal Constitution, and are reviewed under the ‘reasonable probability’ standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 .” (People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 924 .) Under the Watson test, “[t]he reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 .) When applying the Watson standard, “an appellate court may consider, among other things, whether the evidence

2022In making that evaluation, an appellate court may consider, among other things, whether the evidence supporting the existing judgment is so relatively strong, and the evidence supporting a different outcome is so comparatively weak, that there is no reasonable 4 probability the error of which the defendant complains affected the result.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 177 .) When deciding whether to strike a sentence enhancement, a trial court is entitled to consider general sentencing objectives, circumstances in aggravation and mitigation listed in the California Rules of Court,

2025(People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 878 ; Watson, at p. 836.) Here, there was substantial eyewitness and physical evidence linking Thompson to the crime, as well as evidence regarding Thompson’s motive for shooting Cole and Cleveland.

2015(People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 878 .) If a trial court has erred by admitting excessive or extraneous recorded materials, such error may be deemed harmless, if it is not reasonably probable on the record that a different result would have been reached absent the error.

2025Given that, “generally, violations of state evidentiary rules do not rise to the level of federal constitutional error” (People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 91 ), we treat the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence as “state law error . . . subject to the traditional Watson test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ).

2025(See People v. Tran, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1047 .) Finally, even if the trial court erred in admitting the statements, their admission was harmless. “‘[G]enerally, violations of state evidentiary rules do not rise to the level of federal constitutional error.’” (People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646 , 679; see People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 91 .) Thus, the erroneous admission of evidence is “‘state law error . . . subject to the traditional [People v.] Watson [(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 ] test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been mo

2022(See People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 646 .) “[S]tate law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson[6] test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the error.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 (Partida); see ibid. [federal due process is offended only if admission of the irrelevant evidence renders the trial fundamentally unfair].) In cases not involving a gang enhancement, “evidence of gang membership is potentially prejudicial and should not be admitted if i

2013(People v. Hernandez (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1049 .) In sum, no evidence was introduced at any time during the trial, as to appellant’s gang membership. 7 Assuming arguendo evidentiary error, “the admission of evidence, even if erroneous under state law, results in a due process violation only if it makes the trial fundamentally unfair.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 .) “Absent fundamental unfairness, state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson3 test: The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more f

2005(Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 70 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 385 , 112 S.Ct. 475 ]; Spencer v. Texas (1967) 385 U.S. 554, 563-564 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 606 , 87 S.Ct. 648 ]; People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 913 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 847 , 986 P.2d 182 ] [“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”]; see also Duncan v. Henry, supra, 513 U.S. at p. 366 .) Absent fundamental unfairness, state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson test: The reviewing court must a

2005(Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 70 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 385 , 112 S.Ct. 475 ]; Spencer v. Texas (1967) 385 U.S. 554, 563-564 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 606 , 87 S.Ct. 648 ]; People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 913 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 847 , 986 P.2d 182 ] [“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”]; see also Duncan v. Henry, supra, 513 U.S. at p. 366 .) Absent fundamental unfairness, state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the traditional Watson test: The reviewing court must a

2025(See People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933 , 948 (Hendrix).) To hold an error was prejudicial, the court need not conclude that the error “ ‘ “more likely than not” ’ ” affected the result.

2025(See People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 948 (Hendrix).) To hold an error was prejudicial, the court need not conclude that the error “ ‘ “more likely than not” ’ ” affected the result.

2025(People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 999 (Cunningham).) The error is harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a result more favorable to the defendant absent the error.