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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2013 0 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. McDonaldgreen2 sentences2013Ochoa also cites People v. McDonald to argue the trial court should not have excluded “evidence that is relevant to the prime theory of the defense . . .in wholesale fashion.” (People v. McDonald (1982) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372 .) This is not the case. 1997And then depending upon what he does in cross-examination, you might be able to bring that out on redirect.” 7 We note that California law does not prohibit a party’s impeachment of its own witness. (§785.) 8 When asked, Sarasy’s counsel confirmed Schmidt would testify he did not retain a copy of the declaration Vorse’s counsel faxed to him. 9 In this regard, the Supreme Court’s admonition should be borne in mind: “Evidence that is relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler without it.” (People v. McDonald (1984 | 2 | 5 |
People v. Yugreen2 sentences1985(People v. Love (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 928, 937 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 532 ].) Moreover, “Evidence that is relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler without it.” (People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 ].) “The ‘prejudice’ referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against . . . [one party] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.” (People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 1985(People v. Love (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 928, 937 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 532 ].) Moreover, “Evidence that is relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler without it.” (People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 ].) “The ‘prejudice’ referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against . . . [one party] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.” (People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. | 1 | 1 |
Kessler v. Graygreen2 sentences1985(People v. Love (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 928, 937 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 532 ].) Moreover, “Evidence that is relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler without it.” (People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 ].) “The ‘prejudice’ referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against . . . [one party] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.” (People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 1985(People v. Love (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 928, 937 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 532 ].) Moreover, “Evidence that is relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler without it.” (People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 ].) “The ‘prejudice’ referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against . . . [one party] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.” (People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lovegreen2 sentences1985(People v. Love (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 928, 937 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 532 ].) Moreover, “Evidence that is relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler without it.” (People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 ].) “The ‘prejudice’ referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against . . . [one party] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.” (People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 1985(People v. Love (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 928, 937 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 532 ].) Moreover, “Evidence that is relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler without it.” (People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 372 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709 ].) “The ‘prejudice’ referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against . . . [one party] as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues.” (People v. Yu (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 358, 377 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||