Particular Kinds of Evidence, generally
Category > Particular Kinds of Evidence, generally
The trial court erred by admitting demonstrative evidence in the form of a reenactment with defendant strangling a mannequin.The trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by allowing a demonstration of the defendant strangling a mannequin at the prosecutor’s direction to establish malice and intent to kill. But the strangulation demonstration was cumulative of other testimony, lacked similarities with the crime, and was inflammatory. However, the error did not require reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.id: 22509
If the prosecution introduces excerpts of a diary into evidence, the defense is entitled to examine the entire diary, subject to appropriate protective orders.The prosecution introduced into evidence the portion of the victim’s diary where she disclosed the molestation. Although a diary may be afforded privacy protection, the prosecution’s use of any portion of the diary reflects a waiver of that privacy interest sufficient to permit review by the defense. The defense had the right to inspect the entire diary subject to appropriate protective orders, and to present argument to the trial court on the issue of relevancy.id: 21446
The absence of general scientific acceptance as to the statistical calculation process rendered the DNA analysis inadmissible.One element of current DNA analysis "the determination of the statistical significance of a match between a defendant's DNA and the DNA in bodily material found at the crime scene" does not satisfy the Kelly-Frye requirement of general scientific acceptance. This finding is contrary to that of People v. Axell, (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 836. However, the court found that Axell has been eclipsed on this point by subsequent scientific developments. The error in admitting the DNA analysis was harmless given the compelling evidence of guilt.id: 12981
FBI agent's testimony did not establish that the procedures used by the FBI in DNA testing were generally accepted within the scientific community as reliable.In People v. Axell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 836, the court found that the manner in which Cellmark Laboratory performed the RFLP (DNA) test has passed Kelly-Frye scrutiny. However, Cellmark uses different protocols, restriction enzymes, probes, matching criteria and databases to arrive at its conclusions than are used by the FBI. The only testimony regarding the procedures employed by the FBI in the present case was presented by an FBI agent/doctor with stellar qualifications. However, his testimony standing alone did not establish that the FBI procedures satisfied the Kelly-Frye requirements. The prosecutor should have presented additional evidence that the protocols and/or procedure of the FBI were generally accepted within the scientific community as reliable. The case was remanded for a determination on this issue.id: 12979
Trial court erred in preventing defendant from conducting an independent DNA test of its half of the semen from the swab.The trial court ordered prosecution access to defense DNA testing of semen obtained from a vaginal swab of a murder victim. The order deprived defendant of the effective assistance of counsel which includes the assistance of experts in preparing a defense and communication with them in confidence. The order was modified to permit the defense to conduct an independent analysis of its half of the semen from the vaginal swab. If the defense intends to call a witness from its testing facility at trial, it shall provide the People with the identity of the witness and a copy of the testing report within the time limits set out in Penal Code section 1054.7.id: 12982
Court erred in admitting DNA analysis because the FBI lab's method for statistical analysis has not received general scientific acceptance.Defendant challenged the admission of the DNA analysis evidence on the ground the FBI's method of analysis did not satisfy <i>Kelly-Frye</i> standards. The standard has been met for the processing and matching steps of DNA analysis, but has not been met for the statistical analysis step because of an absence of general scientific acceptance as to the process used to calculate the statistical significance of a match of DNA patterns. That there are more supporters than detractors in the scientific community did not establish general acceptance as required under <i>Kelly-Frye</i>. However, the error was not prejudicial. Even excluding the DNA analysis, defendant's guilt was overwhelmingly established by victim identification testimony, circumstantial evidence and defendant's own confession.id: 12975
The dog scent evidence was improperly admitted because it lacked foundation and scientific proof of reliability.The trial court erred in admitting dog scent evidence because it lacked foundation and scientific proof of reliability. The dog handler was not a scientist and not qualified to testify about the characteristics of the "scent transfer unit" device he used, or its acceptance in the scientific community. While testimony of a dog's pursuit of a fleeing suspect may be admissible, dog scent recognition is a different issue requiring foundational support. However, any error in admitting the evidence was harmless in light of the compelling evidence of guilt.id: 17729
Updated 2/26/2024The trial court did not err by allowing a computer animation that supported the blood spatter expert’s conclusions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecution to show a computer animation depicting the opinion of its blood spatter expert. The animation illustrated the expert’s conclusions and the jury was informed it was not a recreation of the relevant events.id: 26231
Dog-tracking evidence instruction did not require an admonition that the evidence need be viewed with caution. The prosecution presented evidence that a trained search and cadaver dog alerted to an area in defendant’s motorhome. Contrary to defendant’s claim, CALJIC No. 2.16, which instructed the jurors on dog-tracking evidence, was not inadequate for lack of an admonition that the evidence was to be viewed with caution.id: 26073
The trial court did not err by admitting dog trailing evidence without conducting a Kelly or 402 hearing. The trial court did not err by admitting dog trailing evidence without either a Kelly or an Evidence Code section 402 hearing. Evidence grounded in the ability of particular dogs to perform scent trailing on command has been admissible since 1978, so long as a proper foundation is laid. When establishing the foundation it is not necessary that the prosecutor show the scent presented to the dog was not stale or contaminated.id: 24870
Evidence of an experiment was properly admitted despite the lack of identical conditions.The trial court did not err by admitting the evidence of an experiment conducted by a criminalist where he tested carpet found in the victim’s house. Defendant claimed the conditions were not sufficiently similar of those in the victim’s house. However, the procedures used were sufficient to establish the limited points of whether bleach can destroy blood and whether dried bleach can test negative for blood. These points were supported by the witness’s knowledge of chemistry. It was not necessary that the experiments be conducted under identical conditions.id: 24874
The trial court did not err by excluding evidence of a police experiment during an interview where the circumstances at the scene were different from those in the experiment. The prosecution introduced a witness’s admission during a video-taped interview with the police. The defense then sought to admit a portion of that interview where the police conducted an experiment to determine whether a cigarette lighter would fall out of the witness’s shirt when he bent over. The trial court did not err in refusing to admit that portion of the interview since the experiment conducted during the interview was dissimilar from the question of whether certain pieces of paper could have fallen out of his shirt pocket. id: 24815
SART photos used by the doctor to support his opinion were not testimonial evidence for confrontation clause purposes and were not hearsay, but rather, demonstrative evidence.Defendant was convicted of sexual activity with a 13 year-old girl. He argued the trial court erred in admitting the SART photos of the victim upon which the state’s doctor relied in rendering his opinion. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the photos were properly authenticated by the witness who described in detail the procedures used in creating and preserving the evidence. Moreover, admission of the evidence did not violate the confrontation clause because the photos were not hearsay but rather probative demonstrative evidence of a physical trauma suffered by the victim.id: 23095
The trial court did not err in admitting a computer animation illustrating the forensic expert’s theory about the shooting. Defendant argued the trial court erred by admitting a computer animation illustrating the biomechanics expert’s opinion about the shooting. This was not a computer simulation but an animation that did not draw conclusions. The court did not err in admitting the animation as it was relevant to premeditation, was not unduly speculative, did not create an aura of scientific certainty, and was not cumulative of other evidence.id: 22859
The trial court did not err by allowing the eyewitness to reenact the crime.The trial court did not err by allowing the eyewitnesses to reenact the struggle with the prosecutor portraying the police officer murder victim. The court could find the reenactments were helpful and not misleading.id: 22640
The trial court did not err by introducing drawings of the murder scene prepared by a police artist. Defendant argued the trial court erred by admitting 10 drawings done at the scene by a police artist following interviews. The drawings were not inadmissible hearsay because they were not offered for their truth but rather to illustrate the witness’s testimony. Defendant claimed they were nevertheless inaccurate but the prosecution showed they were accurate in relevant aspects and defense counsel was able to highlight the inaccuracies during cross-examination.id: 22639
The law does not preclude the use of a car’s event data recorder in judicial proceedings.Defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude any evidence concerning information obtained from the event data recorder retrieved from his car pursuant to a search warrant. However, contrary to defendant’s claim, the law does not preclude the use of EDR data in judicial proceedings.id: 22157
Prosecution's computer animation of the shooting was not a new scientific procedure requiring a Kelly hearing.Defendant objected to the introduction of the prosecution's computer animation of the shooting which was the collective product of the prosecution's experts. Defendant argued the animation did not meet the People v. Kelly (1976) 8 Cal.4th 587, formulation for new scientific procedures. However, the computer animations (used by both sides) were tantamount to drawings by the experts and did not constitute a new scientific procedure. Moreover, contrary to defendant's claim the animation was not unduly prejudicial as it was clinical and emotionless.id: 12980
The trial court did not err in admitting a videotape of a simple demonstration performed by a prosecution expert.The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a videotaped demonstration of a fire investigator lighting a paper towel and throwing it to the ground. It was presented to rebut the defense claim that the fire could extinguish in midair
when the paper towel was thrown. Given the simplicity of the demonstration and the point it was trying to make, the court properly rejected the claim that the experiment was not made under sufficiently similar circumstances.id: 19448
A jury can compare an exemplar of defendant's handwriting with the writing on a disputed document to determine if the defendant signed the disputed document.Defendant argued the evidence did not support his insurance fraud conviction because, absent testimony from a handwriting expert, the jury could not properly compare defendant's signature on his driver's license with questioned signatures on the claims and related documents to conclude the latter signatures were made by defendant. However, under Evidence Code section 417, the jury may determine that a criminal defendant signed a document by comparing the handwriting on a questioned document to an authenticated exemplar of the defendant's handwriting.
id: 18800
Court did not err in permitting the prosecution to use a mannequin to illustrate the paths of the bullets through the victim's body.Defendant argued the court abused its discretion in permitting the prosecution to use a mannequin to illustrate the paths of the six bullets through the body of the victim. However, mannequins may be used as illustrative evidence to assist the jury in understanding the testimony of witnesses or to clarify the circumstances of a crime.id: 12974
DNA typing meets the legal requirements for admissibility of novel scientific evidence.DNA typing meets the legal requirements for admissibility of novel scientific evidence and is accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. Moreover, the procedures used by the testing laboratory satisfied foundational requirements notwithstanding defense witnesses finding fault with particular aspects of the tests. Good discussion of the nature of DNA, procedures used to test, and determination of statistical probabilities of a match.id: 12976
Dog-tracking evidence may form the basis for a conviction if it is sufficiently corroborated.Defendant was convicted of burglary after the court admitted evidence that a police dog had tracked him down in a chase. A conviction is proper where dog-tracking evidence is used and there is other corroborative evidence. The other corroborative evidence need not, as a matter of law, be evidence which, standing alone, independently links the accused to the crime. The corroborative evidence need only support the accuracy of the tracking itself. Defendant's conviction was reversed where the trial court failed to inform the jury it must find corroborative circumstances.id: 12977
Expert testimony regarding staged auto accidents in insurance fraud prosecution was not inadmissible profile evidence.Defendant was charged with insurance fraud based on his part in staging auto accidents. He argued the expert testimony by officers who investigate fraudulent accidents amounted to inadmissible profile evidence. However, the defense at trial was that the accidents were not staged. The experts testified in order to explain the relationship between the various pieces of evidence, i.e., damage, nature of the injuries, number of passengers, the common care giver or attorney, etc. The expert opinion that the collisions were staged based upon an integration of these factors was relevant and proper.id: 12978
Record did not show defendant was denied an opportunity to independently verify the DNA test results.Defendant argued that even though the California Supreme Court has rejected a due process right to retest evidence when retesting is impossible due to the small amount of evidence in the context of blood protein tests, the newness of DNA typing and the unacceptable level of proficiency demonstrated by Cellmark Diagnostics in the study argue strongly in favor of a requirement for independent verification of test results. However, the record did not establish that defendant was deprived of the opportunity to test any remaining hairs or request that Cellmark retest its sample.id: 11912
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245