weighs factors in California

2016Guiding Principles A court "must engage in a careful weighing process under [Evidence Code] section 352" when determining whether to admit "propensity" evidence under Evidence Code 1108. ( Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916-917.) "Specifically, the court weighs factors such as the 'nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant i

2014Specifically, the court weighs factors such as the “nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such as admitting some but not all of the defendant’s other sex offenses . . . .” (People v. Falsetta (1999) 21

2016Guiding Principles A court "must engage in a careful weighing process under [Evidence Code] section 352" when determining whether to admit "propensity" evidence under Evidence Code 1108. ( Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916-917.) "Specifically, the court weighs factors such as the 'nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant i

2015Specifically, the court weighs factors such as the ‘nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant in defending against the uncharged offense, and the availability of less prejudicial alternatives to its outright admission, such as admitting some but not all of the defendant’s other sex offenses . . . .’ [Citation.].” (People v. Merr

2021If so, the sentence may stand.” (People v. Garcia (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1756, 1775 ; see also People v. Jones (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 853, 860-861 .) In other words, remand is unnecessary “ ‘if “[i]t is not reasonably probable that a more favorable sentence would have been imposed in the absence of the error.” ’ ” (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 728 .) Here, the court had several aggravating factors justifying imposition of the upper term on the manslaughter charge, but for present purposes we need identify only one: Cassell shot the unarmed Bowen in the back in his own home at midnigh

2021In sentencing a defendant, the trial court “must select the upper, middle, or lower term on each count for which the defendant has been convicted[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.420(a).) In selecting the term, the court weighs the factors in aggravation against those in mitigation, but may not impose the upper term because of a fact also used to impose a sentence enhancement. (§ 1170, subd. (b); People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350 ; People v. Roberson (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 890 ; People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 164-165 [court cannot rely on great bodily injury to impose both an up

2021If so, the sentence may stand.” (People v. Garcia (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1756, 1775 ; see also People v. Jones (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 853, 860-861 .) In other words, remand is unnecessary “ ‘if “[i]t is not reasonably probable that a more favorable sentence would have been imposed in the absence of the error.” ’ ” (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 728 .) Here, the court had several aggravating factors justifying imposition of the upper term on the manslaughter charge, but for present purposes we need identify only one: Cassell shot the unarmed Bowen in the back in his own home at midnigh

2016Guiding Principles A court "must engage in a careful weighing process under [Evidence Code] section 352" when determining whether to admit "propensity" evidence under Evidence Code 1108. ( Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916-917.) "Specifically, the court weighs factors such as the 'nature, relevance, and possible remoteness [of the evidence], the degree of certainty of its commission and the likelihood of confusing, misleading, or distracting the jurors from their main inquiry, its similarity to the charged offense, its likely prejudicial impact on the jurors, the burden on the defendant i