Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Castaneda-Pradogreen2 sentences2025Code, § 352.)” (Castaneda-Prado, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 1284.) The balancing test under Evidence Code section 352 is conducted on a sliding scale: “The more substantial the probative value of the evidence, the greater the danger of the presence of one of the excluding factors that must be present to support an exercise of trial court discretion excluding the evidence. [Citation.] [¶] Where the evidence relates to a critical issue, directly supports an inference relevant to that issue, and other evidence does not as directly support the same inference, the testimony must be received over a 2024Thus, Evidence Code section 352 balancing is undertaken on a sliding scale. ‘The more substantial the probative value of the evidence, the greater the danger of the presence of one of the excluding factors that must be present to support an exercise of trial court discretion excluding the evidence. [Citation.] [¶] Where the evidence relates to a critical issue, directly supports an inference relevant to that issue, and other evidence does not as directly support the same inference, the testimony must be received over [an Evidence Code] section 352 objection absent highly unusual circumstances. | 2 | 2 |
Kessler v. Graygreen2 sentences2025Code, § 352.)” (Castaneda-Prado, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 1284.) The balancing test under Evidence Code section 352 is conducted on a sliding scale: “The more substantial the probative value of the evidence, the greater the danger of the presence of one of the excluding factors that must be present to support an exercise of trial court discretion excluding the evidence. [Citation.] [¶] Where the evidence relates to a critical issue, directly supports an inference relevant to that issue, and other evidence does not as directly support the same inference, the testimony must be received over a 2023“The more substantial the probative value of the evidence, the greater the danger of the 27 presence of one of the excluding factors that must be present to support an exercise of trial court discretion excluding the evidence. [Citation.] [¶] Where the evidence relates to a critical issue, directly supports an inference relevant to that issue, and other evidence does not as directly support the same inference, the testimony must be received over a section 352 objection absent highly unusual circumstances.” (Kessler v. Gray, supra, 77 Cal.App.3d at pp. 291-292.) Because we are dealing with bias | 1 | 5 |
People v. Fudgegreen2 sentences2012Code, § 354; see People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1103 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 ] [“[Excluding defense evidence on a minor or subsidiary point does not impair an accused’s due process right to present a defense.”].) Finally, defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his new trial motion on the ground he had been denied a hearing on the constitutionality of the Nevada convictions. 2012Code, § 354; see People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1103 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 ] [“[Excluding defense evidence on a minor or subsidiary point does not impair an accused’s due process right to present a defense.”].) Finally, defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his new trial motion on the ground he had been denied a hearing on the constitutionality of the Nevada convictions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Lindsay
green
2 sentences1956The court, after referring to the Estate of Lindsay, 176 Cal. 238 [ 168 P. 113 ], and observing that our Supreme Court therein 'discussed and distinguished' the case of Hargadine v. Pulte, 27 Mo. 423 , proceeds as follows (p. 338):" " 'In that case (Hargadine v. Pulte) the excluding clause covered all and every person or persons. 1956The court, after referring to the Estate of Lindsay, 176 Cal. 238 [ 168 P. 113 ], and observing that our Supreme Court therein 'discussed and distinguished' the case of Hargadine v. Pulte, 27 Mo. 423 , proceeds as follows (p. 338):" " 'In that case (Hargadine v. Pulte) the excluding clause covered all and every person or persons. | 2 | 1953–1956 |
Hargadine v. Pulte
neutral
2 sentences1956The court, after referring to the Estate of Lindsay, 176 Cal. 238 [ 168 P. 113 ], and observing that our Supreme Court therein 'discussed and distinguished' the case of Hargadine v. Pulte, 27 Mo. 423 , proceeds as follows (p. 338):" " 'In that case (Hargadine v. Pulte) the excluding clause covered all and every person or persons. 1956The court, after referring to the Estate of Lindsay, 176 Cal. 238 [ 168 P. 113 ], and observing that our Supreme Court therein ‘discussed and distinguished’ the case of Hargadine v. Pulte, 27 Mo. 423 , proceeds as follows (p.338): “ ‘In that case (Hargadine v. Pulte) the excluding clause covered all and every person or persons. | 2 | 1953–1956 |
In Re Estate of Trickett
green
2 sentences1952The will in that ease contained a clause reading: “I purposely refrain from leaving anything by this my last will and testament to any other person or persons, and in the event that any other person or persons shall either directly or indirectly contest this my last will and testament I give to any such person or persons contesting said will the sum of $1 and no more, hereby declaring that I have only at this date two surviving children, to-wit: my said two sons above named.” The District Court of Appeal in its decision upholding the judgment, in discussing the leading case on this subject, Es 1952The will in that ease contained a clause reading: “I purposely refrain from leaving anything by this my last will and testament to any other person or persons, and in the event that any other person or persons shall either directly or indirectly contest this my last will and testament I give to any such person or persons contesting said will the sum of $1 and no more, hereby declaring that I have only at this date two surviving children, to-wit: my said two sons above named.” The District Court of Appeal in its decision upholding the judgment, in discussing the leading case on this subject, Es | 2 | 1952–1952 |
People v. Villa
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Villa (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1042 , 1052.) The probative value of evidence is measured by how strongly the evidence serves to make more or less probable the existence of a fact consequential to the litigation, coupled with the proponent’s need for that item of evidence. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Duran
green
1 sentence2023It has long been recognized that a criminal defendant may “ ‘explore whether a witness has been offered any inducements or expects any benefits for his or her testimony, as such evidence is suggestive of bias.’ ” (People v. Pearson, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 455 ; People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 294 ; Evid. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Pearson
green
1 sentence2023It has long been recognized that a criminal defendant may “ ‘explore whether a witness has been offered any inducements or expects any benefits for his or her testimony, as such evidence is suggestive of bias.’ ” (People v. Pearson, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 455 ; People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 294 ; Evid. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Craine
green
1 sentence2021Braden relies on a Court of Appeal case for the proposition that “[a]t most, ‘adjudication’ [in section 1001.36] could be synonymous with the rendition or pronouncement of judgment, which occurs at the time of sentencing.” (Craine, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 755 .) But Craine was actually deciding whether section 1001.36 15 applied retroactively to defendants convicted before it was enacted but whose cases were not yet final, the question our Supreme Court later addressed in Frahs. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.