 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Gonzales6/14/2002
me sheds great light on the defendant's intent at the time he committed that offense it may lead to a logical inference of his intent at the time he committed the charged offense if the circumstances of the two crimes are substantially similar even though not distinctive." (People v. Nible, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at pp. 848-849.)
In People v. Scott (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 190, 195, 200-201, the court held it was proper to admit other crime evidence relevant to intent where the other crime and charged offense shared the common characteristics that the robber had wielded a knife and had a confederate even though the other crime had occurred eight years earlier. Here, because the facts underlying Gonzales's prior convictions had some similarity to his present offense, it was relevant to show his intent. Thus, Evidence Code section 1101 did not require exclusion of this evidence.
Our conclusion, however, does not end the analysis. Because evidence of other crimes "is so inherently prejudicial, its relevancy is to be 'examined with care.' " (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 631.) Admission of such evidence should not contradict other policies limiting admission, such as the polices underlying Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 384.) Accordingly, we proceed to examine whether the probative value of Gonzales's 1995 conduct was "substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission [would] create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury." (Evid. Code, § 352.)
Evidence Code section 353 provides:
"A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless:
"[ ] . . . [ ]
"(b) The court which passes upon the effect of the error or errors is of the opinion that the admitted evidence should have been excluded on the ground stated and that the error or errors complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice."
There is no miscarriage of justice unless the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the evidence's prejudicial effect. (Evid. Code, § 352.)
The prejudice to which Evidence Code section 352 refers is the creation of an emotional bias against the defendant through evidence with little probative value. (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638.)
" ' ll evidence which tends to prove guilt is prejudicial or damaging to the defendant's case. The stronger the evidence, the more it is "prejudicial." The "prejudice" referred to in Evidence Code section 352 applies to evidence which uniquely tends to evoke an emotional bias against the defendant as an individual and which has very little effect on the issues. In applying section 352, "prejudicial" is not synonymous with "damaging." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Karis, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 638.)
The trial court has broad discretion when deciding whether to admit or exclude evidence objected to on the basis of Evidence Code section 352. (People v. Hall (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 123, 127.) Here, the evidence that Gonzales drove recklessly in 1995 to evade arrest by a Chula Vista police officer did not create an emotional bias against Gonzales. The trial court did not err by admitting evidence of the 1995 reckless driving to evade an officer.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
|