The Court of Appeal Affirmed this aspect of the trial Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal reasoned where, as here, the uninsured plaintiff remains fully responsible for the full amounts billed by the providers, California Evidence Code § 352 authorizes the trial court to exclude evidence of a health care financing company’s payments when admission of such evidence will necessitate undue consumption of time, confuse the issues, mislead the jury, or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal noted the evidence might be probative, but determined it was nonetheless inadmissible on the ground it would “require litigating a vast number of collateral issues.”

Before we delve into the case, here’s a basic reminder of California law as it pertains to these two issues: With respect to the court’s first finding, California Code of Civil Procedure §1258.250 provides: “A statement of valuation data shall be exchanged for each person the party intends to call as a witness to testify to his opinion as to any of the following matters:(a) The value of the property being taken…” With respect to the court’s second finding, California Evidence Code § 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.”Background In California Department of Transportation v. Francisco Javier Briseno, Caltrans, filed an eminent domain action to acquire 2.

The Court rejected the trial court’s determination that plaintiff’s immigration status was relevant for purposes of determining whether he could obtain a lung transplant. Specifically relying on California Evidence Code section 352, the Court of Appeal held the jury should not have been informed about Mr. Velasquez’s undocumented status because such information was substantially more prejudicial than probative. The Court of Appeal then concluded the trial court erred in refusing to grant plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial noting an abuse of discretion occurred because the error (revealing Mr. Velasquez’s immigration status) was too serious to be corrected by limiting instructions.

Penal Code § 245(a)(1); trial court violated U.S. Const. amend. VI Confrontation Clause when, pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code § 352, it prevented questions on cross-examination that would have established that prosecution's key witness likely lied under oath." [via LexisOne]Week of October 13, 2008–In Favor of the Defendant or the CondemnedEx parte Anthony Ray Hinton, (In re: Anthony Ray Hinton v. State of Alabama), 2008 Ala. LEXIS 215 (Ala 10/17/2008) "As sole evidence connecting death-row inmate to two murders was expert testimony that bullets were fired from his gun, trial court, which dismissed his claim defense counsel was deficient for failing to call qualified firearms expert, erred by not making findings under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.

Penal Code § 245(a)(1); trial court violated U.S. Const. amend. VI Confrontation Clause when, pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code § 352, it prevented questions on cross-examination that would have established that prosecution's key witness likely lied under oath." [via LexisOne]If you have problem with this edition it is available athttp://capitaldefenseweekly.com/archives/081006.htmfor printing.