 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Morse1/9/1992
esult directly caused by his act even if there is another contributing cause. If an intervening cause is a normal and reasonably foreseeable result of defendant's original act the intervening act is "dependent" and not a superseding cause, and will not relieve defendant of liability.' [Citations.] Thus, it is only an unforeseeable intervening cause, an extraordinary and abnormal occurrence, which rises to the level of an exonerating, superseding cause." ( at pp. 420-421.) (Italics added.)
We hold the trial court did not abuse its "wide discretion" (People v. Taylor, supra, 112 Cal. App. 3d 348, 363) pursuant to Evidence Code section 352 in ruling that the subject evidence was not relevant.
2. Exclusion of evidence: "It's a piece of cake."
After they had dismantled the slave bomb and before attempting to dismantle the master bomb, Officers McCree and Ball took a break. Officer McCree went to the front of appellant's house and, in response to questions about how his work was going, stated "It's a piece of cake." Appellant sought to introduce this statement but the trial court excluded it.
On appeal, just as with the excluded "tool factor" evidence, appellant contends the relevance of the excluded statement was officer negligence or recklessness so extreme as to constitute a supervening, exonerating cause.
Again, as with the "tool factor" evidence, no such purpose was communicated to the trial court. (Evid. Code, § 354.) In offering this evidence appellant's trial counsel did not deviate from his repeated disavowals of
officer negligence. The only ground he urged for the relevance of this evidence was "that [Officer McCree] knew that he was dealing with an explosive device," a fact not in dispute and clearly established by Officer McCree having dismantled the slave bomb.
The statement was not relevant and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.
3. Exclusion of Evidence: In the opinion of a defense bomb expert the bomb could have been safely moved and remotely rendered safe.
Appellant's trial counsel sought to call a bomb expert witness, Mr. Newhouser, to testify that the bombs could have been safely moved and by remote means, rendered safe. The trial court excluded the offered evidence.
On appeal, as with the two other excluded items of evidence, appellant contends the expert opinion evidence was relevant to officer negligence. No such purpose was communicated to the trial court. (Evid. Code, § 354.) To the contrary, as we earlier noted, appellant's trial counsel explicitly stated that his bomb expert witness had told him "don't call me thinking you're going to prove anybody was negligent, because they were not and I won't say so."
With officer negligence specifically disavowed as a reason to admit the evidence, the trial court could find no other ground, explaining: "And the fact that Mr. Newhouser is--and I'm sure he is a very learned person in this area, I'm aware of his qualifications--but he is going to tell us another way of doing something. And the question is, if negligence is not relevant, simply put, so what? There may be hundreds of different ways. They could have left it alone, they could have it sit in the garage and walked away from it, that's one thing. They could have put it in a container, and the like. ... The answer is it's not relevant."
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.
4. Exclusion of evidence: impeachment of M
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|