Opinion ID: 1933203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probative Value vs. Prejudicial Effect

Text: [¶ 13] We turn then to Xtra Mart's claim that the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighed its probative value. Xtra Mart does not point to any particularly inflammatory information about prior incidents. [9] Rather, it argues that the cumulative evidence of the numerous occasions on which police had been called to this location would tend to make the jury believe that it was a hotbed of criminal activity or public nuisance. The court was careful to restrict the inquiry to avoid testimony regarding the specific outcomes of previous assaults, particularly one involving serious physical injury. The court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion when it concluded that the probative value of evidence related to prior police calls to this Xtra Mart, as limited by the court, was not substantially outweighed by any possible prejudice that could result from the admission of the evidence.