Opinion ID: 2509517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Objection to Dr. Hatcher's Testimony Under Evidence Code Section 352

Text: Defendant contends that Dr. Chris Hatcher's testimony should have been excluded under Evidence Code section 352, which permits the trial court, in its discretion, to 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. In People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130, we rejected the Attorney General's contention that Evidence Code section 352 did not apply to evidence offered under factor (a) of Penal Code section 190.3. Box explained: [T]he trial court lacks discretion to exclude all factor (a) evidence on the ground it is inflammatory or lacking in probative value. (23 Cal.4th at pp. 1200-1201, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130.) It retains, however, its traditional discretion to exclude `particular items of evidence' by which the prosecution seeks to demonstrate either the circumstances of the crime (factor (a)), or violent criminal activity (factor (b)), in a `manner' that is misleading, cumulative, or unduly inflammatory. ( Id. at p. 1201, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130; see People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 534-535, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 285, 49 P.3d 1032.) Here the issue of the admissibility of Dr. Hatcher's testimony under Evidence Code section 352 is simply another way of looking at the question whether that evidence can be admitted as aggravating evidence. Prejudice in section 352 does not refer simply to evidence that is damaging to the defendant. Instead, `[t]he 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. ' ( People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 638, 250 Cal. Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189, italics added.) Dr. Hatcher's testimony provides a basis from which the jurors could infer that defendant is a sadistic pedophile, and premeditated and committed the crime for the sexual pleasure of the act, an aggravating consideration. If that is a permissible inference, as we have concluded, then the evidence is highly probative.