Title: P. v. Partida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S127505
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: November 21, 2005

1
Filed 11/21/05 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S127505 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/8 B161356 
JOSE PARTIDA, 
) 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. TA061403 
___________________________________ ) 
 
In this case, the trial court admitted evidence of defendant’s gang 
involvement over his objection that the evidence was more prejudicial than 
probative.  (See Evid. Code, §  352.)  The Court of Appeal concluded that the 
court erred in admitting some of the evidence but found the error harmless.  We 
granted review to decide when, if ever, a trial objection on Evidence Code section 
352 grounds preserves the appellate argument that admitting the evidence violated 
a defendant’s federal due process rights and, if the argument is preserved, under 
what circumstances error of this nature does violate due process. 
We conclude that a trial objection must fairly state the specific reason or 
reasons the defendant believes the evidence should be excluded.  If the trial court 
overrules the objection, the defendant may argue on appeal that the court should 
have excluded the evidence for a reason asserted at trial.  A defendant may not 
argue on appeal that the court should have excluded the evidence for a reason not 
 
 
2
asserted at trial.  A defendant may, however, argue that the asserted error in 
overruling the trial objection had the legal consequence of violating due process. 
Defendant argues on appeal primarily, perhaps exclusively, that the trial 
court should have excluded the evidence for the reason asserted at trial—that it 
was more prejudicial than probative.  He also argues that this asserted error 
violated his right to due process.  He may make that argument.  To the extent, if 
any, he argues that due process required the court to exclude the evidence for a 
reason not included in the trial objection, that argument is forfeited because he did 
not object to the evidence on that basis at trial. 
On the merits, we accept the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the trial 
court erred in overruling defendant’s trial objection as to some of the gang 
evidence.  We also conclude that error of the kind asserted here rises to the level 
of a due process violation only if it renders the trial fundamentally unfair.  Finally, 
we also accept the Court of Appeal’s conclusions that the perceived error was 
harmless under state law and did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. 
I.  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
On August 11, 2001, Jesse Moreno and three companions were ordering 
food at a Tacos El Unico taco stand in the Compton area of Los Angeles.  A 
passenger in a green van, identified as defendant, asked Moreno, “Where are you 
from?”  Moreno and a companion told defendant, “We don’t bang.”  Defendant 
responded, “I’m from USV, Unos Sin Verguenza.”  The van then left but soon 
turned around.  Later defendant approached Moreno on foot, holding a gun.  When 
defendant pointed the gun at Moreno, Moreno tried to flee, but defendant shot him 
from behind.  As he did so, defendant said, “Fuck you, I’m from USV, Unos Sin 
Verguenza.”  Moreno died of two gunshot wounds in the back. 
Defendant was charged with Moreno’s murder.  At trial, after a pretrial 
hearing, and over defendant’s objection, the court permitted a sheriff’s detective to 
 
 
3
testify as an expert on criminal street gangs.  He testified that in English, “Unos 
Sin Verguenza” means “those without shame” or “ones without shame.”  He 
provided substantial testimony about gangs, including how they mark out their 
territory, and how they commit violent crimes to enhance their reputation.  Just 
before the detective testified, defense counsel renewed on the record that he was 
objecting to the gang evidence on the basis of Evidence Code section 352 because 
it was “unnecessary and at this point it’s cumulative.  They have evidence that this 
gang is in that area [because] there is graffiti there and that my client has been 
identified as a member of this gang and that the person who committed this 
murder is from the gang, and anything beyond that is cumulative at this point and 
more prejudicial than probative.” 
A jury found defendant guilty of Moreno’s murder in the first degree and 
found true a weapon enhancement allegation.  The court sentenced him to prison 
for a total of 50 years to life.  He appealed. 
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.  It found that, although much 
of the gang evidence was properly admitted, the trial court abused its discretion 
under Evidence Code section 352 in admitting some of it.  It also concluded that 
defendant’s trial objection to the gang evidence as more prejudicial than probative 
(Evid. Code, § 352) preserved for appeal the argument that erroneously admitting 
the evidence violated his due process rights.  It held, however, that defendant’s 
due process rights were not violated because admitting the gang evidence did not 
make the trial fundamentally unfair.  Finally, it found the perceived error harmless 
under the test for state law error established in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 
818, 836; it found no reasonable probability defendant would have obtained a 
more favorable outcome had the evidence been excluded. 
We granted defendant’s petition for review. 
 
 
4
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Forfeiture 
Defendant objected to the gang evidence at trial on the ground that it should 
have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because it was more 
prejudicial than probative.1  He did not object at trial that admitting the evidence 
would violate his due process rights.  On appeal, he argues that the court erred in 
overruling the objection and also that the asserted error violated his constitutional 
right to due process.  He does not clearly specify which Constitution, state or 
federal, he is relying on, but the briefing generally discusses the federal 
Constitution.  Accordingly, we will focus on defendant’s federal due process 
claim. 
The first question we must decide is whether petitioner’s objection under 
Evidence Code section 352 preserved his due process argument on appeal.  The 
question is one of statutory interpretation.  Evidence Code section 353 provides, as 
relevant, “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:  [¶]  (a) There appears of record an objection to or a motion to 
exclude or to strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make 
clear the specific ground of the objection or motion . . . .”  (Italics added.)  “In 
accordance with this statute, we have consistently held that the ‘defendant’s failure 
to make a timely and specific objection’ on the ground asserted on appeal makes 
that ground not cognizable.  (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 22 [objection on 
                                              
1  
Evidence Code section 352 provides:  “The court in its discretion may 
exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the 
probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) 
create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of 
misleading the jury.” 
 
 
5
ground that questions were leading does not preserve appellate argument that the 
evidence was impermissible evidence of other crimes] ; . . .)”  (People v. Seijas 
(2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 302.) 
A century ago, long before the Evidence Code existed, we explained the 
need for a specific objection.  “To require this is simply a matter of fairness and 
justice, in order that cases may be tried on their merits.  Had attention been called 
directly in the court below to the particular objection which it is now claimed the 
general objection of appellant presented, that court would have had a concrete 
legal proposition to pass on, and counsel for plaintiff would have been advised 
directly what the particular complaint against the question was, and, if he deemed 
it tenable, could have withdrawn the inquiry or reframed his question to obviate 
the particular objection.  Trial judges are not supposed to have the numerous, 
varied, and complex rules governing the admissibility of evidence so completely 
in mind and of such ready application that under an omnivagant objection to a 
question they can apply with legal accuracy some particular principle of law which 
the objection does not specifically present.”  (Bundy v. Sierra Lumber Co. (1906) 
149 Cal. 772, 776; see People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 187-188 [citing 
Bundy].) 
The objection requirement is necessary in criminal cases because a 
“contrary rule would deprive the People of the opportunity to cure the defect at 
trial and would ‘permit the defendant to gamble on an acquittal at his trial secure 
in the knowledge that a conviction would be reversed on appeal.’ ”  (People v. 
Rogers (1978) 21 Cal.3d 542, 548.)  “The reason for the requirement is manifest:  
a specifically grounded objection to a defined body of evidence serves to prevent 
error.  It allows the trial judge to consider excluding the evidence or limiting its 
admission to avoid possible prejudice.  It also allows the proponent of the 
evidence to lay additional foundation, modify the offer of proof, or take other 
 
 
6
steps designed to minimize the prospect of reversal.”  (People v. Morris, supra, 53 
Cal.3d at pp. 187-188.) 
Thus, the requirement of a specific objection serves important purposes.  
But, to further these purposes, the requirement must be interpreted reasonably, not 
formalistically.  “Evidence Code section 353 does not exalt form over substance.”  
(People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 188.)  The statute does not require any 
particular form of objection.  Rather, “the objection must be made in such a way 
as to alert the trial court to the nature of the anticipated evidence and the basis on 
which exclusion is sought, and to afford the People an opportunity to establish its 
admissibility.”  (People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 906.)  What is 
important is that the objection fairly inform the trial court, as well as the party 
offering the evidence, of the specific reason or reasons the objecting party believes 
the evidence should be excluded, so the party offering the evidence can respond 
appropriately and the court can make a fully informed ruling.  If the court 
overrules the objection, the objecting party may argue on appeal that the evidence 
should have been excluded for the reason asserted at trial, but it may not argue on 
appeal that the court should have excluded the evidence for a reason different from 
the one stated at trial.  A party cannot argue the court erred in failing to conduct an 
analysis it was not asked to conduct. 
In this case, defendant objected at trial that the gang evidence should be 
excluded under Evidence Code section 352.  The objection alerted the court to the 
nature of the anticipated evidence and the basis on which its exclusion was sought.  
It permitted the court to make an informed ruling and gave the People the 
opportunity to establish the evidence’s admissibility.  On appeal, defendant may 
argue that the court erred in its ruling.  But he may not argue that the court should 
have excluded the evidence for a reason different from his trial objection.  If he 
had believed at trial, for example, that the trial court should engage in some sort of 
 
 
7
due process analysis that was different from the Evidence Code section 352 
analysis, he could have, and should have, make this clear as part of his trial 
objection.  He did not do so.  Accordingly, he may not argue on appeal that due 
process required exclusion of the evidence for reasons other than those articulated 
in his Evidence Code section 352 argument. 
We believe, however, that defendant may make a very narrow due process 
argument on appeal.  He may argue that the asserted error in admitting the 
evidence over his Evidence Code section 352 objection had the additional legal 
consequence of violating due process.  Similarly, a defendant may argue that error 
in overruling a trial objection was prejudicial under the Watson test (People v. 
Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818) without citing Watson as part of the trial objection. 
We recently concluded that, “[a]s a general matter, no useful purpose is 
served by declining to consider on appeal a claim that merely restates, under 
alternative legal principles, a claim otherwise identical to one that was properly 
preserved by a timely motion that called upon the trial court to consider the same 
facts and to apply a legal standard similar to that which would also determine the 
claim raised on appeal.”  (People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 117; accord, 
People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1195, fn. 6.) 
Here, as discussed in part II. B., post, the admission of evidence, even if 
error under state law, violates due process only if it makes the trial fundamentally 
unfair.  Accordingly, the due process argument is not identical to the trial 
objection.  (See also Duncan v. Henry (1995) 513 U.S. 364 [due process and 
Evidence Code section 352 claims are not identical for federal exhaustion 
purposes].)  To the extent, if any, that defendant may be understood to argue that 
due process required exclusion of the evidence for a reason different from his trial 
objection, that claim is forfeited.  Defendant could have apprised, but did not 
apprise, the trial court of such a claim.  But defendant primarily makes a two-step 
 
 
8
argument on appeal:  (1) the trial court erred in overruling the trial objection, and 
(2) the error was so serious as to violate due process.2  To consider this narrow 
due process argument on appeal “entails no unfairness to the parties,” who had the 
full opportunity at trial to litigate whether the court should overrule or sustain the 
trial objection.  (People v. Yeoman, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 118.)  Defendant’s 
limited due process claim “merely invites us to draw an alternative legal 
conclusion [i.e., that erroneously admitting the evidence violated due process] 
from the same information he presented to the trial court [i.e., that the evidence 
was more prejudicial than probative].  We may therefore properly consider the 
claim on appeal.”  (Id. at p. 133.) 
When a trial court rules on an objection to evidence, it decides only 
whether that particular evidence should be excluded.  Potential consequences of 
error in making this ruling play no part in this decision.  A reviewing court, not the 
trial court, decides what legal effect an erroneous ruling has.  Here, the trial court 
was called on to decide whether the evidence was more prejudicial than probative.  
It did so.  Whether its ruling was erroneous is for the reviewing court to decide.  If 
the reviewing court finds error, it must also decide the consequences of that error, 
including, if the defendant makes the argument, whether the error was so serious 
                                              
2  
The concurring and dissenting opinion asserts that defendant’s argument 
that “the gang evidence was inherently prejudicial in that it was akin to propensity 
evidence, criminal profile evidence, and evidence of crimes committed by third 
parties,” is new and not included in his trial objection under Evidence Code 
section 352.  (Conc. & dis. opn., post, at p. 3; see also id. at p. 13.)  In addition to 
this argument, defendant also argues that the evidence was not very probative, 
partly because it was cumulative.  This is classic Evidence Code section 352 
analysis, which requires a weighing of the prejudicial effect of evidence (hence 
permitting argument that the evidence is prejudicial) against its probative value.  
(E.g., People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 191-194; People v. Champion 
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 922-923.) 
 
 
9
as to violate due process.  The consequences of hypothetical error are not 
something the trial court ordinarily can or should consider when making the initial 
ruling.  The trial court merely rules on the actual objection.  Ordinarily, it does 
not, and usually cannot, base this ruling on whether admitting prejudicial evidence 
would render the trial fundamentally unfair.  Once the reviewing court has found 
error in overruling the trial objection, whether that error violated due process is a 
question of law for the reviewing court, not the trial court in ruling on the 
objection, to determine in assessing the consequence of that error.  Similarly, in 
ruling on the trial objection, the trial court would not decide whether an erroneous 
ruling would be prejudicial under the Watson test.  (People v. Watson, supra, 46 
Cal.2d 818.) 
If the trial objection fairly informs the court of the analysis it is asked to 
undertake, no purpose is served by formalistically requiring the party also to state 
every possible legal consequence of error merely to preserve a claim on appeal 
that error in overruling the objection had that legal consequence.  Specifically, no 
purpose would be served by requiring the objecting party to inform the court that it 
believes error in overruling the actual objection would violate due process.  
Indeed, if a defendant who objected on Evidence Code section 352 grounds argues 
on appeal that the court erred in admitting the evidence for a reason different than 
that it was more prejudicial than probative, an additional trial invocation of due 
process or some other general principle that did not reasonably apprise the trial 
court of the analysis it was being asked to undertake would not be sufficient to 
preserve the argument. 
The Attorney General cites a number of cases in which we found a due 
process argument on appeal not cognizable when the defendant had not objected 
on due process grounds at trial.  (E.g., People v. Heard (2003) 31 Cal.4th 946, 
972, fn. 12; People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 869; People v. Boyette 
 
 
10
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 273, fn. 14; 
People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1240, fn. 2.)  Those cases should be read 
to hold only that the constitutional argument is forfeited to the extent the 
defendant argued on appeal that the constitutional provisions required the trial 
court to exclude the evidence for a reason not included in the actual trial objection.  
They did not consider whether, and do not preclude us from holding that, 
defendant may argue an additional legal consequence of the asserted error in 
overruling the Evidence Code section 352 objection is a violation of due process.3  
(E.g., People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1195, fn. 6 [trial objection under 
Evidence Code sections 352 and 1101 preserved claim that the asserted error 
violated due process and the constitutional right to a reliable verdict]; People v. 
Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305-306; People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 
950-952.)4 
                                              
3  
The concurring and dissenting opinion also relies heavily on these cases, 
but they do not consider this question.  For example, the case that opinion 
discusses most extensively as “typical” (conc. & dis. opn., post, at p. 2), People v. 
Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at page 273, footnote 14, states only this:  “Defendant 
claims that by denying his motion [to bar certain testimony], the court committed 
error not only under Evidence Code section 352, but also under the United States 
Constitution, including the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  He 
failed to make an argument below based on any federal constitutional provision.  
Hence, he may not raise such an argument here.”  (Italics added.)  We reiterate 
that a defendant may not argue that the court committed error for a reason not 
included in the trial objection.  But neither Rowland nor any of the other opinions 
cited in the dissenting and concurring opinion considered—or held one way or the 
other—whether the defendant may assert that error in overruling the actual 
objection was so serious as to violate due process. 
4  
The concurring and dissenting opinion states that these three cases neither 
reflected that the Attorney General had asserted the claims were forfeited nor cited 
Evidence Code section 353.  (Conc. & dis. opn., post, at pp. 4-5, fn. 1.)  The same 
is true of the cases the concurring and dissenting opinion cites as supposedly 
resolving this entire question.  (Id. at p. 2.)  (In People v. Yeoman, supra, 31 
Cal.4th at page 133, where we permitted the defendant to argue that admitting 
 
 
 
11
Here, to the extent defendant asserts a different theory for exclusion than he  
asserted at trial, that assertion is not cognizable.5  But he primarily argues that the 
court erred in admitting the evidence because it was more prejudicial than 
probative under Evidence Code section 352, which was precisely his trial 
objection, and which was the basis for the Court of Appeal’s finding of error.  
Defendant also argues that this error had the legal consequence of violating his 
due process rights.  This he may do. 
B.  The Merits 
Permitting defendant to argue that erroneously overruling his trial 
objections violated due process does not, of course, mean that the argument is 
meritorious; it only means that he may make the argument. 
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion under 
Evidence Code section 352 in admitting some of the gang evidence.  We accept 
for purposes of review this fact-specific application of settled law without 
                                                                                                                                      
 
certain evidence rendered the death sentence arbitrary and unreliable in violation 
of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the People did argue 
that the Eighth Amendment claim was forfeited because the defendant had not 
cited that Amendment at trial, an argument we rejected.)  None of these cases are 
authority for propositions not considered.  That is why we are explaining and 
reconciling all of our cases, not just a selected portion of them.  Principles of stare 
decisis do not preclude us from doing so. 
5  
In response to the concurring and dissenting opinion’s assertion that we are 
somehow permitting “a challenge to an evidentiary ruling based on an argument 
never presented to the  trial court” (conc. & dis. opn., post, at p. 9) and, 
accordingly, are permitting defendants to “blindsid[e]” the trial court and 
prosecution (id. at pp. 15, 17) , we can merely reiterate what we have already 
stressed:  If the court overrules the objection, the objecting party may argue on 
appeal that the evidence should have been excluded for the reason asserted at trial, 
but it may not argue on appeal that the court should have excluded the evidence 
for a reason different from the one stated at trial.  A party cannot argue the court 
erred in failing to conduct an analysis it was not asked to conduct.  (Ante, p. 6.)  
We are permitting no blindsiding. 
 
 
12
deciding the question ourselves.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29(b)(3) [“The 
court need not decide every issue the parties raise or the court specifies.”]; People 
v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073, 1076-1077.)  Defendant argues that this error 
was so serious as to violate due process.  But the admission of evidence, even if 
erroneous under state law, results in a due process violation only if it makes the 
trial fundamentally unfair.  (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 70; Spencer v. 
Texas (1967) 385 U.S. 554, 563-564; People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 
913 [“The admission of relevant evidence will not offend due process unless the 
evidence is so prejudicial as to render the defendant’s trial fundamentally 
unfair.”]; see also Duncan v. Henry, supra, 513 U.S. at p. 366.)  Absent 
fundamental unfairness, state law error in admitting evidence is subject to the 
traditional Watson test:  The reviewing court must ask whether it is reasonably 
probable the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant absent the 
error.  (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 878; People v. Watson, supra, 46 
Cal.2d at p. 836.) 
The Court of Appeal applied the correct test both when it found no due 
process violation (fundamental fairness) and when it found the state law error 
harmless (Watson).  Because the Court of Appeal’s application of these tests is 
fact specific, we also accept its conclusions on these points.6 
                                              
6  
In response to the concurring and dissenting opinion’s assertion that this 
opinion is “likely to breed confusion” (conc. & dis. opn., post, at p. 14), we 
believe that permitting defendants to argue that error in overruling a trial objection 
was so serious as to render the trial fundamentally unfair in violation of their due 
process rights is neither particularly complex nor beyond the comprehension of 
future courts. 
 
 
13
III.  CONCLUSION 
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. 
 
CHIN, J. 
WE CONCUR: 
 
GEORGE, C. J. 
WERDEGAR, J. 
MORENO, J. 
 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY BAXTER, J. 
 
When a party objects at trial to the admission of certain evidence as 
substantially more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352 
(section 352), may the party argue on appeal, for the first time, that the admission 
of the evidence violated due process?  The answer to that question is found in the 
general forfeiture rule set forth in Evidence Code section 353, which bars relief 
based on the erroneous admission of evidence unless the aggrieved party presented 
an objection to the trial court “that was timely made and so stated as to make clear 
the specific ground of the objection” and the reviewing court agrees that the 
evidence “should have been excluded on the ground stated.”  (Italics added.)  
Because defendant’s section 352 objection failed to make clear that he was also 
objecting to the evidence on due process grounds, the plain language of the statute 
compels the conclusion that he has thereby forfeited his due process claim.    
The analysis here therefore should be straightforward.  The general 
forfeiture rule set forth in Evidence Code section 353 “applies equally to any 
claim on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted, other than the stated 
ground for the objection at trial.”  (People v. Kennedy (2005) 36 Cal.4th 595, 612, 
italics added.)  In particular, for over 15 years, we have relied on section 353 to 
bar defendants from expanding a trial objection to evidence that rested on one 
ground—i.e., that the evidence was substantially more prejudicial than probative 
under section 352—into an appellate argument on a different ground—i.e., that 
 
2 
admission of the evidence thereby rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.  (See, 
e.g., People v. Heard (2003) 31 Cal.4th 946, 972, fn. 12; People v. Burgener 
(2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 869; People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424; People 
v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 273, fn. 14; People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 
870, 892; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 786, fn. 7; People v. Gordon 
(1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1240, fn. 2.)  Rowland is typical.  In that case, the 
defendant objected at the penalty phase of a capital trial to testimony from the 
second victim of a prior kidnapping on the ground that her testimony “would be 
substantially more prejudicial than probative” under section 352.  (Rowland, 
supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 273.)  On appeal, the defendant renewed his section 352 
claim but added a new claim of error based on the theory that the second witness’s 
testimony was so “inflammatory” as to deny him his rights “under the United 
States Constitution, including the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment.”  (Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 273, fn. 14.)  We held—
unanimously—that the due process claim was forfeited because defendant “failed 
to make an argument below based on any federal constitutional provision.”  (Ibid.)   
Rowland and our other cases construing Evidence Code section 353 are 
indistinguishable from the circumstances here, which involve the admission of 
evidence of defendant’s gang involvement to explain the motive for his senseless 
murder of Jesse Moreno.  At an Evidence Code section 402 hearing prior to trial, 
the prosecution made an offer of proof concerning the gang expert’s testimony and 
argued that this evidence tended to show the motive for Moreno’s murder as well 
as the identity of the murderer.  Defendant objected to this evidence, but on the 
specific grounds that the evidence was irrelevant and cumulative.  Almost as an 
afterthought, and without any elaboration, defendant also summarily objected on 
the ground the evidence was “more prejudicial than probative” under section 352.  
The trial court excluded part of the proffered evidence and declared that the 
 
3 
remainder, while inadmissible as to identity, could be used to demonstrate motive 
“because, you know, the jurors are going to sit there and say, ‘Why did this 
happen?’ . . .  [and] what it all means when someone rolls up and says, ‘Where 
you from?’ and so forth.”  Defendant continued to object, but conceded that “if 
you’re not going to allow it for identification at this point, then to prove motive I 
guess—I guess that it would be limited then.”   
At trial, the gang expert explained that “Where you from?” constitutes a 
“challenge” in the gang culture and is a question with “no correct answer.”  The 
questioner “is asking you to either say ‘yes’ and claim your gang or do what is 
shameful and rank out which means you deny you’re . . . a member of the gang.”  
When the questioner identifies his own gang—such as by saying, “This is USV, 
Unos Sin Verguenza”—he is making sure the victim and the others nearby know 
that the gang is “claiming” this territory.  The expert also explained that gangs 
commit crimes to enhance their reputations, that more violent crimes instill more 
fear and respect in the community, and that the shooter would thus perceive no 
need to disguise himself or his gang affiliation in committing the crime.   
On appeal, for the first time, defendant articulated a due process objection 
to this evidence.  His due process objection was based not on the theory that the 
probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of 
undue prejudice but instead on the theory that the gang evidence was inherently 
prejudicial in that it was akin to propensity evidence, criminal profile evidence, 
and evidence of crimes committed by third parties. 
As the majority concedes, defendant “did not object at trial that admitting 
the evidence would violate his due process rights.”  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 4.)  The 
majority likewise concedes that the trial court had no opportunity to evaluate the 
constitutional arguments defendant now urges on appeal.  (See id. at pp. 8-9.)  
Under the plain language of Evidence Code section 353 and our case law 
 
4 
construing that statute in this precise context, defendant forfeited his claim that the 
admission of the gang evidence violated his due process rights.  The majority, 
remarkably, finds to the contrary, although the precise basis for its conclusion 
remains obscure.  In particular, the majority does not explain how an objection on 
section 352 grounds makes clear to the trial court that the defendant is also 
objecting on due process grounds.   
The majority does try to distinguish our longstanding line of cases 
construing Evidence Code section 353 to bar a defendant from claiming due 
process error for the first time on appeal, but the distinction is a false one.  The 
majority suggests that these cases “hold only that the constitutional argument is 
forfeited to the extent the defendant argued on appeal that the constitutional 
provisions required the trial court to exclude the evidence for a reason not 
included in the actual trial objection.”  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 10.)  But, as 
discussed above, we have applied the forfeiture rule even when the actual trial 
objection was that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative under section 
352 and the argument on appeal was that the error in overruling the section 352 
objection allowed in evidence that was so “inflammatory” as to deny the defendant 
due process.  (E.g., People v. Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 273 & fn. 14.)  
Inasmuch as defendant’s trial objection here was merely that the evidence was 
more prejudicial than probative under section 352 and his appellate argument is 
that “the erroneous admission of the inflammatory gang evidence” denied him due 
process, this case is indistinguishable from those enforcing our long-standing 
interpretation of section 353.1   
                                              
1  
The majority also cites three cases in which we proceeded to decide a due 
process claim even though the face of the opinion did not reflect that an objection 
on that ground had been made in the trial court.  (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 
1158, 1195, fn. 6; People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305-306; People v. 
 
 
5 
In other words, this case is really about stare decisis.  The high court 
reminds us “often and with great emphasis” that stare decisis “ ‘is of fundamental 
importance to the rule of law.’ ”  (Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989) 491 
U.S. 164, 172.)  We have echoed that sentiment and have agreed with the high 
court that “[t]he principles underlying the doctrine of stare decisis apply with 
special force in the context of statutory interpretation.”  (Barner v. Leeds (2000) 
24 Cal.4th 676, 686, fn. 2; accord, Patterson, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 172.)  “[A]ny 
departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification” (ibid.), 
and therefore the “ ‘burden borne by the party advocating the abandonment of an 
established precedent is greater when the Court is asked to overrule a point of 
statutory construction.’ ”  (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1213, quoting 
Patterson, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 172.)   
The majority fails utterly to grapple with the doctrine of stare decisis and 
the special justification necessary to overrule a point of statutory construction.  
That is unfortunate.  (See Shepard v. United States (2005) ___ U.S. ___ [125 S.Ct. 
1254, 1261 [“In this instance, time has enhanced even the usual precedential force, 
nearly 15 years having passed”].)  Yet, even if it were considered as a question of 
first impression, the majority’s newly minted exception to Evidence Code section 
353 lacks any coherent justification.  Because it is essential to discover the 
majority’s rationale for this exception in order to determine whether it will apply 
                                                                                                                                      
 
Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 950-952.)  In none of those cases, however, did 
our opinions reflect that the Attorney General ever asserted that the claims had 
been forfeited for failure to articulate that specific ground below.  More 
importantly, none of those cases purported to construe—or even cited—Evidence 
Code section 353.  Inasmuch as the Attorney General here has invoked the 
forfeiture rule of section 353 and (as the majority concedes) section 353 governs 
here, those three cases are not authority on the forfeiture issue.  (People v. 
Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 243 [“ ‘[C]ases are not authority for propositions 
not considered’ ”].)        
 
6 
in other circumstances in the future, I will endeavor to explain what it is not—or, 
at the least, cannot be.  
1.  Is defendant’s due process claim identical to his trial objection?  No. 
The majority quotes our recent opinion in People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 
Cal.4th 93, 117 (Yeoman)—that “ ‘[a]s a general matter, no useful purpose is 
served by declining to consider on appeal a claim that merely restates, under 
alternative legal principles, a claim otherwise identical to one that was properly 
preserved by a timely motion that called upon the trial court to consider the same 
facts and to apply a legal standard similar to that which would also determine the 
claim raised on appeal’ ” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 7)—but then fails to explain how, 
if at all, this rather unremarkable proposition applies here.  In Yeoman, we held 
that a defendant who made a Wheeler2 objection to the exercise of a peremptory 
challenge at trial could assert a Batson3 objection to the exercise of that challenge 
on appeal.  We did so on the belief, since superseded (see Johnson v. California 
(2005) ___ U.S. ___ [125 S.Ct. 2410]), that “Wheeler and Batson articulate the 
same standard” and thus “required the trial court to conduct the same factual 
inquiry” and to apply an “identical” legal standard.  (Yeoman, supra, 31 Cal.4th at 
p. 117.)  Under those circumstances, the parties “had an opportunity to litigate the 
relevant facts and to apply the relevant legal standard in the trial court.”  (Id. at p. 
118, fn. omitted.)   
Defendant, like the Court of Appeal, argued that his due process claim was 
identical to his objection under section 352.  The majority properly rejects this 
argument.  A claim under section 352 and a claim under due process are “not 
identical.”  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 7.)  The former depends on whether the 
                                              
2  
People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258. 
3  
Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79. 
 
7 
probative value of the challenged evidence is substantially outweighed by the 
danger of undue prejudice; the latter depends on whether the challenged evidence 
rendered the entire proceedings fundamentally unfair.  As the high court has made 
clear, these legal standards “are no more than ‘ “somewhat similar.” ’ ”  (Duncan 
v. Henry (1995) 513 U.S. 364, 366.)  Because these claims do not depend on the 
same facts and are not governed by similar legal standards, Yeoman is 
inapplicable.  (People v. Smith (2005) 35 Cal.4th 334, 356 [defendant’s 
constitutional claim is not preserved where it “is not identical to his properly 
preserved claim based on California decisions and statutes”].)          
2.  Did defendant’s trial objection, even if not identical to his due process  
argument on appeal, “fairly inform” the trial court of his due process argument? 
No.   
The majority at various points deems it “important” that an objection 
“fairly inform” the trial court of the argument sought to be advanced on appeal.  
(Maj. opn., ante, at p. 6.)  I agree that an objection should, at a minimum, fairly 
inform the trial court and the opposing party of the specific ground sought to be 
urged on appeal—but this, once again, offers no help to defendant.  As the high 
court explained in Duncan v. Henry, supra, 513 U.S. at page 366, an objection 
under section 352 that the evidence is more prejudicial than probative does not 
fairly “apprise” the court of a due process claim that the evidence was so 
“inflammatory as to prevent a fair trial.”  Indeed, as the majority elsewhere 
cautions, a trial court confronted with a section 352 objection cannot and should 
not consider whether the challenged evidence would render the trial fundamentally 
unfair.  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 9.)  Consequently, the trial court was not informed, 
fairly or otherwise, of the argument defendant now urges on appeal.    
 
8 
3.  Even if defendant’s due process claim is not preserved, may he 
nonetheless argue that the “legal consequence” of overruling his statutory 
objection was a due process violation?  No.  
The majority never actually states that defendant’s due process objection is 
preserved for appeal notwithstanding his failure to fairly present it to the trial 
court.  Instead, the majority asks “when, if ever, a trial objection on Evidence 
Code section 352 grounds preserves the appellate argument that admitting the 
evidence violated a defendant’s federal due process rights” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 
1) and then concludes that a defendant may argue “that the asserted error in 
overruling the trial objection had the legal consequence of violating due process.”  
(Id. at p. 2.)  The majority thus deems it significant that the defendant is making a 
“two-step argument on appeal:  (1) the trial court erred in overruling the trial 
objection, and (2) the error was so serious as to violate due process.”  (Id. at pp. 7-
8.)  Unfortunately, the majority has to take more than two steps—indeed, it must 
execute a reverse double somersault with a twist—to find that the due process 
argument here is preserved.   
The majority never explains what qualifies as a claim and what qualifies as 
a legal consequence (or how to distinguish between the two), nor does the majority 
explain why the former is barred but the latter is preserved.4  It makes no more 
sense to say that overruling a section 352 objection was error that had the legal 
consequence of violating due process than it would be to say that overruling a 
                                              
4  
I agree with the majority that a trial court, in ruling on an evidentiary 
objection, “would not decide whether an erroneous ruling would be prejudicial 
under the . . . test” of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818.  (Maj. opn., ante, at 
p. 9.)  But we are dealing here with federal due process, which is a freestanding 
substantive claim, not a state constitutional standard of harmless error.  Quite 
simply, there is no such thing as a “Watson claim.”  The analogy, therefore, is 
inapt.   
 
9 
relevance objection was error that had the legal consequence of violating section 
352 or that overruling a hearsay objection was error that had the legal consequence 
of violating the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.  In the latter 
circumstances, we have regularly held that the appellate claim—i.e., the legal 
consequence—is forfeited.  (E.g., People v. Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879, 913 
[relevance objection does not preserve claim under section 352; the trial court was 
not asked “to weigh the conversations’ probative value and prejudicial effect”]; 
People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 138, fn. 14 [hearsay objection does not 
preserve claim that the “error constituted a violation of his Sixth Amendment right 
to confrontation”].)  The majority offers no reason why a different result should 
obtain here.  (People v. Rowland, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 273, fn. 14 [section 352 
objection does not preserve claim that “by denying his motion, the court 
committed error . . . under the United States Constitution, including the due 
process clause”].)  
More problematically, the majority’s blanket assertion that we may review 
a challenge to an evidentiary ruling based on an argument never presented to the 
trial court so long as the argument is cast as a “consequence” rather than as an 
independent “claim” is utterly bereft of legal support.  The majority cites no 
authority, here or elsewhere, in support of this newly minted distinction.  This is 
not surprising, inasmuch as we long ago foreclosed such sophistic analysis:  “ ‘The 
general rule confining the parties upon appeal to the theory advanced below is 
based on the rationale that the opposing party should not be required to defend for 
the first time on appeal against a new theory that “contemplates a factual situation 
the consequences of which are open to controversy and were not put in issue or 
presented at the trial.” ’ ”  (Yeoman, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 118, fn. 3, italics 
added, quoting Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Cal.2d 736, 742.)  Where, as here, 
those consequences were not identified at trial, the defendant may not rely on them 
 
10 
to challenge the trial court’s ruling—for, “[i]n the absence of a timely and specific 
objection on the ground sought to be urged on appeal,” the appellate court simply 
will not review “the trial court’s rulings on admissibility of evidence.” (People v. 
Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 125-126.)  The majority fails to recognize that we sit to 
review trial court rulings, not consequences of particular objections, and that when 
we review those rulings, we are limited to those attacks articulated in the trial 
court.  (People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 302 [“we have consistently held 
that the ‘defendant’s failure to make a timely and specific objection’ on the ground 
asserted on appeal makes that ground not cognizable”]; People v. Kennedy, supra, 
36 Cal.4th at p. 612 [“The appellate court’s review of the trial court’s admission of 
evidence is then limited to the stated ground for the objection”].)  Because 
defendant failed to articulate a due process argument below, he forfeited it for 
appeal. 
Even on its own terms, the distinction the majority draws between this case 
and our existing rule is at best an elusive one.  As I understand it, the majority 
would continue to bar defendants from arguing for the first time on appeal that by 
overruling a section 352 objection, the trial court “committed error . . . under . . . 
the due process clause.”  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 10, fn. 3, italics omitted.)  But the 
majority will now allow defendants to argue for the first time on appeal that “error 
in overruling the actual objection was so serious as to violate due process.”  (Ibid., 
italics added.)  I do not understand why the claim would be barred in one 
circumstance and not the other, nor does the majority explain why this slight 
difference in language should be endowed with transcendental significance.         
4.  Is the trial court incompetent to decide a due process claim?  No.   
The majority observes that in resolving a section 352 objection, a trial court 
“does not, and usually cannot, base this ruling on whether admitting prejudicial 
evidence would render the trial fundamentally unfair.”  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 9.)  
 
11 
But the question here is not whether a trial court can or does resolve a due process 
claim in the course of resolving a section 352 objection, but whether a trial court 
could resolve a due process claim if a defendant were to make a timely evidentiary 
objection on that specific ground.  If trial courts are incompetent to resolve a 
timely due process objection to evidence, then the majority would be correct that 
defendants need not object to the evidence on that specific ground in order to 
preserve the due process claim for appeal.  If, on the other hand, trial courts are 
competent to resolve timely due process objections to the evidence, then Evidence 
Code section 353 requires defendants to make such an objection on a timely basis 
in the trial court, on pain of forfeiting the claim on appeal.  The statute contains no 
exception for arguments that the defendant could have brought to the trial court’s 
attention (but did not) and that the trial court was competent to resolve (but had no 
opportunity to do so).   
In my view, it is plain that trial courts are competent—indeed, well 
equipped—to resolve evidentiary objections based on due process.  The judge who 
sits through the trial and hears the witnesses firsthand is in a much better position 
to gauge the impact of the challenged evidence on the jury than is an appellate 
tribunal, which has only the cold record to review.  (Cf. People v. Cornwell (2005) 
37 Cal.4th 50, 87 [effect of spectator misconduct]; Walling v. Kimball (1941) 17 
Cal.2d 364, 369 [effect of attorney misconduct].)  As we recently observed, “it is 
the trial court that has a ‘first-person vantage’ [citation] on the effect of trial errors 
or irregularities on the fairness of the proceedings in that court.”  (People v. Ault 
(2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1267.)  Moreover, trial courts have a “constitutional duty 
. . . to ensure that defendants be accorded due process of law.” (People v. 
Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 582, italics added) and statutory authority to 
correct asserted errors in the admission of evidence.  (Pen. Code, § 1181, subd. 5 
 
12 
[trial court has authority to grant a new trial based on error “in the decision of any 
question of law arising during the course of the trial”].)     
Our forfeiture rule reflects the principle “that a trial on the merits, whether 
in a civil or criminal case, is the ‘main event,’ and not simply a ‘tryout on the 
road’ to appellate review.”  (Freytag v. Commissioner (1991) 501 U.S. 868, 895 
(conc. opn. of Scalia, J.), quoting Wainwright v. Sykes (1977) 433 U.S. 72, 90.)  
Allowing defendants to withhold a specific ground for the evidentiary objection, 
when the trial court is fully competent to consider that ground, thwarts this 
fundamental principle.  As the majority points out, it is “ ‘simply a matter of 
fairness and justice’ ” to alert the trial court “ ‘to the particular objection’ ” sought 
to be advanced on appeal so that the trial court “ ‘can apply with legal accuracy 
[the] particular principle of law’ ” at issue.  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 5.)  Without “ ‘a 
specifically grounded objection’ ” articulating “the specific reason or reasons the 
objecting party believes the evidence should be excluded,” the party offering the 
evidence cannot respond appropriately, nor can the trial court make a fully 
informed ruling.  (Id. at pp. 5, 6.)  If, as the majority contends, defendants forfeit 
all other types of due process objections that are not presented to the trial court 
(see id. at pp. 6-7), it remains a mystery why this particular due process argument 
falls outside the general rule.            
5.  Whatever the rationale for the majority’s exception to our longstanding 
forfeiture rule, has defendant actually satisfied the exception?  No.   
Evidence Code section 353 bars relief based on the admission of evidence 
unless the objecting party stated an objection so as “to make clear the specific 
ground of the objection” (italics added) and the appellate court agrees that the 
evidence should have been excluded “on the ground stated.”  Defendant’s due 
process claim is forfeited through any fair application of this clear statutory 
command.  But, under the majority’s strained interpretation of the statute, relief 
 
13 
may be granted “for a reason asserted at trial” or “included in the trial objection.”  
(Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1-2, italics added.)  However, the objecting party “may not 
argue on appeal that the court should have excluded the evidence for a reason 
different from the one stated at trial.”  (Id. at p. 6.)  Although the majority’s new 
formulation is sure to spawn hard-fought but largely pointless litigation as to what 
constitutes the same reason or a different reason, this case seems to fit in the latter 
category, not the former. 
As the majority concedes, the sole reason defendant identified at trial for 
excluding the gang evidence was his unadorned contention that it was more 
prejudicial than probative.  On appeal, though, defendant’s claim has undergone a 
transformation.  Defendant does not claim merely that the admission of evidence 
that was more prejudicial than probative, in that its probative value was so slight, 
violated his due process rights.  Rather, he argues that his due process rights were 
violated by the admission of evidence that was “inherently prejudicial” and that 
this evidence should be treated like evidence of a defendant’s propensity to 
commit crimes, evidence of a criminal profile, and evidence of crimes committed 
by third parties.  As to propensity, he argues that the gang evidence caused the 
jury to believe he “was more likely to have committed the violent offenses 
charged against him because of his membership in the . . . gang.”  As to criminal 
profile, he argues that the gang evidence deprived him of his “right to be tried 
based on the evidence against him . . . , not on the techniques utilized by law 
enforcement officials in investigating criminal activity.”  And, as to third party 
crimes, defendant argues that the gang evidence saddled him “with the burden of 
proving the innocence of another.  Such a burden violates the fundamental 
principles of due process of law.”   
As amicus curiae State Public Defender explained at oral argument, the 
burden rests with the appellant to show that the appellate claim was the same as 
 
14 
the trial objection.  Defendant has not discharged this burden.  Neither the trial 
court nor the prosecutor was ever alerted to these theories for exclusion, let alone 
any of the case law on which defendant is now relying.  The prosecution never had 
the chance to “respond appropriately” to these bases for excluding the evidence, 
and the trial court never had the chance to “make a fully informed ruling” on them.  
(Maj. opn., ante, at p. 6.)  As the Attorney General pointed out in his brief and 
again at oral argument, a fair reading of the record reveals that defendant’s due 
process claims do not fall within the majority’s newly created exception to the 
forfeiture rule.   
Thus, rather than “reiterate” its general rule that a defendant may argue on 
appeal that the evidence “should have been excluded for the reason asserted at 
trial” but not “for a reason different from the one stated at trial” (maj. opn., ante, at 
p. 11, fn. 5), the majority ought instead to identify which of these due process 
arguments were preserved by defendant’s perfunctory section 352 objection and 
which were not.  The reviewing courts that will have to apply the majority’s newly 
minted exception will need guidance in determining which theories are included 
within the reason asserted at trial and which are not.  The majority’s blanket 
statement that each of defendant’s appellate arguments “is classic Evidence Code 
section 352 analysis” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 8, fn. 2), without regard to whether 
any of these arguments were actually presented below, is likely to breed 
confusion.   
In sum, there is no rationale—let alone a coherent one—for repudiating our 
long-standing forfeiture rule in this context.  Even if this were a question of first 
impression, there is likewise no justification for the exception the majority has 
crafted to Evidence Code section 353’s clear command.  Although such an 
exception has the potential to be extended in unpredictable and mischievous ways, 
one hopes that it will instead remain a curiosity, applicable only to the singular 
 
15 
circumstance when a defendant unsuccessfully challenges the admission of 
evidence at trial as more prejudicial than probative under section 352 and the 
appellate court is persuaded that admission of the evidence was error, albeit 
harmless.  If limited to that circumstance, however, the rule will not benefit 
defendants in any discernible way.  Error that is deemed harmless under People v. 
Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, will rarely (if ever) have the “consequence” of 
rendering a trial fundamentally unfair.   
If, on the other hand, the new exception created by the majority were to 
have any practical effect, it will come only at the cost of blindsiding trial courts 
that have conscientiously considered the objections actually made and burdening 
appellate courts by forcing them to address evidentiary objections never passed on 
below.  When a defendant objects that the admission of certain evidence would 
violate section 352, the trial court may find that the probative value of that 
particular evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue 
prejudice—and, at that point, the trial court’s duty under section 352 is discharged.  
If, on the other hand, the defendant were to object also that the admission of this 
evidence would render his trial fundamentally unfair, the trial court has a different 
duty.  The trial court would no longer focus on the relative probative and 
prejudicial value of that particular piece of evidence, but on the effect of that 
evidence on the trial as a whole.  The trial court would also be alerted that review 
of its ruling on the due process issue would not be subject to the abuse of 
discretion standard that attaches to its ruling on the statutory claim, so it would be 
compelled to focus special attention on that distinctly broader constitutional 
question in the course of making subsequent rulings in the case.  In discharging its 
duties, the trial court has both statutory and inherent authority to defer ruling on 
the due process objection until the effect of the challenged evidence on the entire 
proceeding can be assessed, up to and including the close of the prosecution’s 
 
16 
case-in-chief, the close of evidence, and a defendant’s motion for new trial.  (See 
Pen. Code, §§ 1093, 1094; People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 147.)  It makes 
no sense to manufacture an exception to Evidence Code section 353 that 
encourages parties to bypass the trial court and thereby denies appellate courts of 
their expertise.        
If the prosecution were similarly alerted in a timely manner to the due 
process claim, it too would likewise have an opportunity to make appropriate 
adjustments.  The prosecutor (or the trial court) might propose a limiting 
instruction that would ameliorate the possibility the jury might use the evidence 
for an improper purpose, such as to prove that the defendant had a propensity to 
commit this type of crime, that defendant fit a criminal profile, or that defendant 
was guilty because of his association with criminals.  The prosecutor might choose 
to offer additional evidence on the points in controversy, thereby diminishing the 
importance of the challenged evidence.  The prosecutor might achieve the same 
result by electing not to rely on the disputed evidence in closing argument.  In 
short, both the trial court and the prosecutor might make numerous adjustments 
upon learning the true nature of defendant’s objection.  I therefore respectfully 
disagree with the majority’s assertion that “no purpose would be served by 
requiring the objecting party to inform the court that it believes error in overruling 
the actual objection would violate due process.”  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 9.)  At a 
minimum, the majority’s approach will undermine what defense counsel and 
amicus curiae State Public Defender conceded at oral argument was the “best 
practice” for trial lawyers—i.e., to present the trial court with an objection on both 
section 352 grounds and on due process grounds.  Even worse, the majority’s 
approach will allow parties to deliberately withhold the objections that would 
enable the opposing party and trial courts to make appropriate adjustments to 
avoid the risk of reversal.   
 
17 
Aside from blindsiding the trial court and the opposing party, the majority’s 
new exception to Evidence Code section 353 encourages defendants to withhold 
all but one of the grounds for an objection from the trial court and then, on appeal, 
to invoke every conceivable constitutional provision as a legal consequence of 
overruling the objection actually made at trial.  This will do nothing but burden 
appellate courts with the task of evaluating a multiplicity of legal consequences, 
none of which was ever presented to the trial court and most of which will likely 
border on the frivolous.   
Evidence Code section 353 requires a party’s objection to be “timely made 
and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection.”  (Italics 
added.)  The majority concedes that defendant never made clear to the trial court 
that he objected to the gang evidence on the specific ground of due process and 
concedes as well that his due process objection is not “identical,” within the 
meaning of Yeoman, supra, 31 Cal.4th at page 117, to the section 352 objection he 
did assert at trial.  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 7.)  Nor does the majority contend that 
the section 352 objection “ ‘specifically present[ed]’ ” the due process claim 
defendant advances on appeal (maj. opn., ante, at p. 5), or that the People “had the 
full opportunity at trial to litigate” the due process argument (id. at p. 8) or to 
“ ‘cure the defect’ ” by offering a limiting instruction or taking other steps 
designed to minimize the prospect of reversal.  (Id. at p. 5.)  “Defendant  
 
18 
could have apprised, but did not apprise, the trial court of such a claim.”  (Id. at p. 
7.)  He therefore forfeited his due process challenge.  Because the majority finds 
otherwise, I respectfully dissent from that determination.  I concur only in the 
judgment.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BAXTER, J. 
WE CONCUR: 
 
KENNARD, J. 
ASHMANN-GERST, J.* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_____________________________________ 
 
*  Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division 
Two, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 
California Constitution. 
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion People v. Partida 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted XXX 121 Cal.App.4th 202 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S127505 
Date Filed: November 21, 2005 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: Los Angeles 
Judge: Arthur M. Lew 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Appellant: 
 
Verna Wefald, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. 
 
Michael J. Hersek, State Public Defender, and Barry P. Helft, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, as 
Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Respondent: 
 
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. 
Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. De Nicola, Lance E. Winters, John R. Gorey and Laura 
J. Hartquist, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
Verna Wefald 
65 North Raymond Avenue, #320 
Pasadena, CA  91103 
(626) 577-2658 
 
Barry P. Helft 
Chief Deputy State Public Defender 
221 Main Street, 10th Floor 
San Francisco, CA  94105 
(415) 904-5600 
 
Laura J. Hartquist 
Deputy Attorney General 
300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 
Los Angeles, CA  90013 
(213) 576-1354