State cannot claim in California

2019The “ ‘Eighth Amendment requires that the jury be able to consider and give effect to’ a capital defendant’s mitigating evidence.” (Tennard v. Dretke (2004) 542 U.S. 274, 285 .) “Thus, a State cannot bar ‘the consideration of . . . evidence if the sentencer could reasonably find that it warrants a sentence less than death.’ ” (Ibid.) Despite this constitutional proscription, “the trial court still ‘ “determines relevancy in the first instance and retains discretion to exclude evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will create substantia

2017Wall is correct that "a State cannot bar 'the consideration of ... evidence if the sentencer could reasonably find that it warrants a sentence less than death.' [Citation.] [¶] Once this low threshold for relevance is met, the 'Eighth Amendment requires that the jury be able to consider and give effect to' a capital defendant's mitigating evidence. [Citations.]" ( Tennard v. Dretke (2004) 542 U.S. 274 , 285, 124 S.Ct. 2562 , 159 L.Ed.2d 384 .) But nothing in that constitutional rule "limits the traditional authority of a court to exclude, as irrelevant, evidence not bearing on the defendant's

2019J. 287, 320; see also Romano v. Oklahoma (1994) 512 U.S. 1, 12 ; People v. McDowell (2012) 54 Cal.4th 395, 431 ; People v. Loker (2008) 44 Cal.4th 691, 731 .) A trial court’s decision to exclude asserted mitigating evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

2019J. 287, 320; see also Romano v. Oklahoma (1994) 512 U.S. 1, 12 ; People v. McDowell (2012) 54 Cal.4th 395, 431 ; People v. Loker (2008) 44 Cal.4th 691, 731 .) A trial court’s decision to exclude asserted mitigating evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

2017Such balancing under Evidence Code section 352 is an essential component of a trial court's "traditional authority." ( Lockett , supra , 438 U.S. at p. 604, fn. 12 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 ; see People v. Fauber , supra , 2 Cal.4th at p. 856 , 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 , 831 P.2d 249 [finding no constitutional violation in trial court's exclusion of the defendant's refusal of a plea offer under Evidence Code section 352 ]; U.S. v. Fell (2d Cir. 2008) 531 F.3d 197 , 219-220 [finding no error in district court's exclusion of a plea offer as mitigating evidence in part because it "would authorize a confusing and u

2017Such balancing under Evidence Code section 352 is an essential component of a trial court's "traditional authority." ( Lockett , supra , 438 U.S. at p. 604, fn. 12 , 98 S.Ct. 2954 ; see People v. Fauber , supra , 2 Cal.4th at p. 856 , 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 , 831 P.2d 249 [finding no constitutional violation in trial court's exclusion of the defendant's refusal of a plea offer under Evidence Code section 352 ]; U.S. v. Fell (2d Cir. 2008) 531 F.3d 197 , 219-220 [finding no error in district court's exclusion of a plea offer as mitigating evidence in part because it "would authorize a confusing and u

1993In thus departing from Citizens Against Forced Annexation , the court opined that if the restriction truly implicated the fundamental constitutional right to vote, the prior case had erred in holding that preventing neighboring voters from vetoing reorganizations was a compelling interest, because “ ‘the state cannot claim a compelling interest in excluding voters becaus e of how they may vote.’ ” (Board of Supervisors, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 920 .) However, the court again upheld the rule, for reasons similar to its previous decision.

1992(Carrington v. Rash (1965) 380 U.S. 89, 94 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 675, 679 , 85 S.Ct. 775 ].)” (32 Cal.3d at p. 805.) As Carrington explained, “ ‘Fencing out’ from the franchise a sector of the population *921 because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible.” (Carrington v. Rash (1965) 380 U.S. 89, 94 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 675, 679 , 85 S.Ct. 775 ].) To the extent that Citizens, supra, 32 Cal.3d 816 , is inconsistent with the constitutional principles set forth in this opinion, it is not to be followed.

1992(Carrington v. Rash (1965) 380 U.S. 89, 94 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 675, 679 , 85 S.Ct. 775 ].)” (32 Cal.3d at p. 805.) As Carrington explained, “ ‘Fencing out’ from the franchise a sector of the population *921 because of the way they may vote is constitutionally impermissible.” (Carrington v. Rash (1965) 380 U.S. 89, 94 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 675, 679 , 85 S.Ct. 775 ].) To the extent that Citizens, supra, 32 Cal.3d 816 , is inconsistent with the constitutional principles set forth in this opinion, it is not to be followed.

1985To this argument, the Fullerton Supreme Court responded: “It is, of course, clear that the state cannot claim a compelling interest in excluding voters because of how they may vote.” (Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education, supra, 32 Cal.3d 779, 805 .) The effect of Cardiff’s interpretation of section 37085 would disenfranchise concededly interested voters.

1982In Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action (1977) 430 U.S. 259 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 313 , 97 S.Ct. 1047 ], the court noted that in a "single shot" or "referendum" election, the state may more easily justify limiting the franchise because the single proposal makes it far easier "to determine whether its adoption or rejection will have a disproportionate impact on an identifiable group of voters." (P. 266 [51 L.Ed.2d, p. 321].) Our opinion in Fullerton observed that although it is "clear that the state cannot claim a compelling interest in excluding voters because of how they may vote.... [i]f we reph

1982In Lockport v. Citizens for Community Action (1977) 430 U.S. 259 [ 51 L.Ed.2d 313 , 97 S.Ct. 1047 ], the court noted that in a "single shot" or "referendum" election, the state may more easily justify limiting the franchise because the single proposal makes it far easier "to determine whether its adoption or rejection will have a disproportionate impact on an identifiable group of voters." (P. 266 [51 L.Ed.2d, p. 321].) Our opinion in Fullerton observed that although it is "clear that the state cannot claim a compelling interest in excluding voters because of how they may vote.... [i]f we reph