ÿWPC› ô¾èÕéï:à½8»ªÀMÌñÈäŸMCÓƒ;­#É•‰¼ ÀÞœ¾È$‘$0/©«¬À¨Aý¾Ìeb<-¨äðÄ{?¯°^ç½ñÇ|XýÑõ"â8(5{éM~4#¢‰4Þxº—h{`“1ÍÔž¹Ð«YŸxÜ>Û]GÿÊé3­;žìËŒ„w1|]ÐQ´j×2!½‘ LPIàk H¨áéz‰iC÷'…AºbRÉÀH3⮼Õ[8óR ƒ¹[©³µ˜˜tîÃfýøŸ(2Q€Îk[¯Ut^m$ƒ•Z®nɲ²åž©^‚G"Šó­ö.ÑDœ|Ë’váÄ?"b0ÌafÜ>#!àUN %O 0(U^ }w@‰4ÉÝì mîU>  .K"y˜HP LaserJet 5Si,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡8/ä DžŸD I¡D¢D£D¤D¥D¦gvî.ê:i¢Ø+003|x¦ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ %ô\  `&Times New Roman $Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ   Ñ Ñ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_Ôñ¢ñÑH°Ññ¢ñÓ  Óñ¡ñÑ8€.ÕXXdðdÈ8Ññ¡ññ¦ñÑ8€¾ÑXdðdÈ8Ññ¦ñà@ìàò òEVIDENTIARY€ISSUES€FREQUENTLY€ARISING€IN€HOMICIDE€CASESó óˆÐ ° ÐÌññà@ìàñññ£ñò òñ£ñBy€Michael€A.€Kresser,ñžñ€ñžññŸñÐ à Ðà@••ìàñŸñExecutive€Directorñ ñ,€SDAPñ ññ£ñó óñ£ñÌÌò òA.à0  àADMISSIBILITY€OF€OUT„OF„COURT€STATEMENTS€OF€OTHERS€WHICHÐ pÀ ÐINCULPATE€THE€DEFENDANT€UNDER€THE€SIXTH€AMENDMENTÏCONFRONTATION€CLAUSE€AND€THE€DECLARATION€AGAINST€INTERESTÏHEARSAY€EXCEPTION€Ð (#(# Ðó óÌò òà  à1.à ` àMost€recent€Ô_ÔUSSCÔ_Ô€case:€€òòLilly€v.€Virginiaóó€(1999)€527€U.S.€116.ó óÐ  p  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àTrial€court€admits€out„of„court€statement€by€defendantððs€accompliceÏ(not€a€co„defendant)€to€police,€stating€defendant€instigated€carjackingÏand€shot€victim€of€carjacking,€under€declaration€against€penal€interestÏexception€to€hearsay€rule€after€accomplice€takes€the€Fifth€at€trial.€ÏÔ_ÔUSSCÔ_Ô€judgment:€€Admission€of€statement€violated€defendantððsÏConfrontation€Clause€rights.€€Plurality€opinion€of€four:€(a)€accompliceÏconfessions€which€inculpate€a€defendant€are€not€within€a€firmlyÏrooted€hearsay€exception€for€purposes€of€Confrontation€ClauseÏanalysis;€(b)€rejects€state€courtððs€determination€that€statements€withinÏð ðresidual€trustworthinessðð€test€of€Confrontation€Clause€becauseÏaccomplice€had€been€Ô_ÔMirandizedÔ_Ô,€implicated€himself€in€seriousÏcrimes,€and€portions€of€statements€corroborated€by€other€evidence.€€ÏScalia€concurs€in€judgment,€with€little€explanation€as€to€why€notÏjoining€plurality€opinion.€€Four€others:€€Accompliceððs€statementsÏinculpating€defendant€simply€not€against€accompliceððs€penal€interest,Ïplurality€approach€wrongly€puts€admissibility€of€ð ðequallyÏinculpatoryðð€accomplice€statements€and€accomplice€statements€toÏnon„police€in€doubt.Ð ` x` x ÐÌà  àò ò2.à0 ` àReview€of€pre„òòLillyóó€Ô_ÔUSSCÔ_Ô€cases€on€application€of€Confrontation€Clause€toÐ Ð  Ðhearsay€accomplice€statements/confessions.Ð ` (#` (# Ðó óÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(a)à0¸ ` x` xàòòDouglas€v.€Alabamaóó€(1965)€380€U.S.€415ó ó.€€CourtÐ  #ð! Ðunanimously€rules€that€admission€of€a€Ô_ÔnontestifyingÔ_ÔÏaccompliceððs€hearsay€confession,€which€implicated€theÏdefendant€as€the€shooter€in€an€assault€with€intent€to€commitÏmurder,€was€Ô_ÔviolativeÔ_Ô€of€Confrontation€Clause€due€to€lack€ofÏcross„examination.€€When€declarant€accuses€another€inÏcircumstances€in€which€declarant€stands€to€gain,€accusation€isÏpresumptively€suspect.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(b)à0¸ ` x` xàòòÔ_ÔBrutonÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó€(1968)€391€U.S.€123ó ó.€€Co„Ð ,`'* Ðdefendantððs€confession€saying€he€and€defendant€did€crimeÏadmitted€at€joint€trial€against€co„defendant€only,€with€jury€toldÏit€could€not€be€used€against€defendant.€€Holding:€€unrealisticÏto€believe€jury€could€follow€such€instruction,€so€defendantððsÏConfrontation€Clause€rights€were€violated.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(c)à0¸ ` x` xàòòLee€v.€Illinoisóó€(1986)€476€U.S.€530ó ó.€€Co„defendantððsÐ P   Ðstatement€implicating€defendant€violated€ConfrontationÏClause.€€Court€rejects€claim€that€statement€sufficientlyÏreliable€to€justify€admission,€holding€that€presumption€ofÏunreliability€applies,€and€was€not€rebutted.€€ConsistencyÏbetween€co„defendantððs€and€defendantððs€own€confessionÏ[ð ðinterlockðð]€does€not€sufficiently€establish€reliability€becauseÏconfessions€also€had€inconsistencies€on€issues€in€dispute€atÏtrial.€€Danger€with€such€statements€is€ð ðselective€reliability.ðð€ÏDissent€by€four:€statements€were€against€penal€interest,€aÏfirmly€established€hearsay€objection,€were€extensivelyÏcorroborated,€relatively€consistent.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(d)à0¸ ` x` xàòòCruz€v.€New€Yorkóó€(1987)€481€U.S.€186ó ó.€€Co„defendantððsÐ €Ð Ðconfession€implicating€defendant€not€admissible€despiteÏð ðinterlockingðð€and€consistent€confession€by€defendant.€€StillÏa€Confrontation€Clause€violation,€though€defendantððsÏconfession€may€affect€harmless€error€analysis.€Four€dissent.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(e)à0¸ ` x` xàòòRichardson€v.€Marshóó€(1987)€481€U.S.€200ó ó.€€Co„defendantððsÐ  p Ðconfession€redacted€to€omit€any€reference€whatsoever€toÏdefendant,€or€any€person€who€jury€might€identify€asÏdefendant.€€Jury€told€statement€not€admissible€againstÏdefendant.€€Holding:€€redaction€was€sufficient€to€satisfyÏòòÔ_ÔBrutonÔ_Ôóó€concerns,€because€redacted€statement€contained€noÐ Ð  Ðreference€to€defendantððs€existence.€€Fact€that€defendantððs€ownÏtestimony€created€a€ð ðlinkageðð€to€defendant,€by€putting€her€inÏcar€during€time€in€which€co„defendantððs€statement€said€otherÏperp€said€he€would€kill€robbery€victims,€does€not€makeÏòòÔ_ÔBrutonÔ_Ôóó€applicable.Ѐ%Ð #¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(f)à0¸ ` x` xàòòGray€v.€Marylandóó€(1998)€523€U.S.€185ó ó.€€Case€involvingÐ `'°"% Ðsufficiency€of€redaction€of€Ô_ÔnontestifyingÔ_Ô€co„defendantððsÏstatement.€€When€co„defendant€would€mention€defendantððsÏname,€the€detective€reading€statement€said€ð ðDeleted.ðð€ÏWritten€version€had€blanks.€€Detective€also€said€after€gettingÏco„defendantððs€statement,€he€arrested€defendant.€€BareÐ ,`'* Ðmajority€notes€that€redactions€which€use€blanks€or€otherÏdevices€which€notify€jury€that€a€name€has€been€deleted€are€notÏsufficient€to€satisfy€Confrontation€Clause.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌò òà  à3.à0 ` àCalifornia€Cases.ó óÐpÀ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(a)à0¸ ` x` xàòòPeople€v.€Duarteóó€(2000)€24€Cal.4th€603ó ó.€€California€SupremeÐ P   ÐCourt€avoids€Confrontation€Clause€issue€by€rulingÏÔ_ÔnontestifyingÔ_Ô€accompliceððs€confession€not€within€EvidenceÏCode€section€1230€declaration€against€interest€hearsayÏexception.€€Statement€analyzed€to€see€if€declaration€was€bothÏagainst€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ôððs€penal€interest€and€otherwise€sufficientlyÏreliable€to€warrant€admission.€€Found€that€trial€court€had€notÏredacted€every€exculpatory€portion€of€statement.€€NotesÏparticularly€that€in€case€in€which€both€defendant€and€co„¼defendant€were€accused€of€shooting€at€house€and€hitting€anÏoccupant,€co„defendantððs€claim€he€ð ðshot€high,€at€the€roofðð€wasÏexculpatory€and€blame„shifting.€€In€assessing€reliability,€notesÏstatement€had€blame„shifting€aspects,€and€was€made€to€policeÏshortly€after€arrest,€negative€indicators€of€reliability.€€Thus,Ïeven€if€statement€had€been€redacted€to€remove€exculpatoryÏmaterial,€still€inadmissible€due€to€overall€lack€ofÏtrustworthiness.€€Finds€error€prejudicial€under€òòWatsonóóÐ P  Ðstandard,€referring€to€initial€hung€jury€in€which€accompliceÏactually€testified,€jury€inquiries€about€the€accompliceððsÏstatement,€and€lack€of€physical€evidence€tying€defendant€toÏcrime.€€Three€justices€say€that€if€redaction€properly€done,Ïstatement€should€come€in,€because€it€was€sufficientlyÏtrustworthy.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(b)à0¸ ` x` xàòòPeople€v.€Fletcheróó€(1996)€13€Cal.4th€451ó ó.€€Co„defendantÐ Ð  ÐFletcher€tells€fellow€prisoner€that€he€and€ð ðfriendðð€were€usingÏruse€to€get€cars€to€pull€over€so€they€could€rob€occupants,€andÏthat€he€shot€a€driver€who€stopped,€then€started€driving€away.€ÏOther€evidence€established€that€defendant€Ô_ÔMoordÔ_Ô€was€withÏFletcher€moments€after€fatal€shooting.€€Cal.€Supreme€CourtÏanticipates€Ô_ÔUSSCÔ_Ôððs€1998€holding€in€òòGray€v.€Marylandóó€thatÐ p&À!$ Ðsuch€redaction€does€not€remove€incriminating€effect€and€didÏnot€avoid€Confrontation€Clause€violation.€€òòFletcheróó€also€holdsÐ P( #& Ðthat€Prop.€8€abrogated€the€state€law€based€decision€of€òòPeopleÐ @)$' Ðv.€Ô_ÔArandaÔ_Ôóó€(1965)€63€Cal.2d€518.Ð0*€%(¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(c)à0¸ ` x` xàòòPeople€v.€Gordonóó€(1990)€50€Cal.3d€1223ó ó.€€Defendantððs€uncle,Ð ,`'* Ðwho€lived€in€Georgia,€told€police€that€he€had€received€a€callÏfrom€a€person€saying€defendant€had€been€shot€and€neededÏtreatment.€€Uncle€told€them€to€come€to€Georgia,€they€did,€andÏuncle€treated€defendantððs€wounds.€€When€uncle€claimed€Fifth,Ïprosecutor€introduced€his€extrajudicial€statement€to€police.ÏAdmitted€by€trial€court€as€statement€against€penal€interest.€ÏCourt€reviews€under€abuse€of€discretion€standard,€upholdsÏfinding€that€statement,€while€not€explicitly€admittingÏknowledge€of€defendantððs€committing€felony€or€intent€to€aid,Ïimpliedly€did,€thus€subjecting€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô€to€risk€of€criminalÏliability€as€an€accessory,€even€though€police€said€he€shouldÏnot€fear€prosecution€if€he€had€taken€no€part€in€the€crimes.€ÏRejects€argument€that€uncle€in€position€to€want€to€curry€favorÏwith€prosecutor,€distance€himself€from€crimes,€since€noÏindication€uncle€was€ever€in€California,€where€crimes€wereÏcommitted.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(d)à0¸ ` x` xàòòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔGreenbergerÔ_Ôóó€(1997)€58€Cal.App.4th€298ó ó.€€ThreeÐ  ð Ðco„defendants€make€statements€to€one€acquaintance€regardingÏtheir€roles€in€a€murder.€€Statements€incriminate€not€only€eachÏÔ_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô,€but€also€co„defendants.€€Appellate€court€saysÏstatements€were€specifically€Ô_ÔdisservingÔ_Ô€to€Ô_ÔdeclarantsÔ_Ô,€withinÏdeclaration€against€interest€exception,€that€exception€is€firmlyÏrooted€for€purpose€of€Confrontation€Clause,€and€statementsÏwere€trustworthy.€€Questionable€analysis€on€all€these€points.€ÏStatement€of€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô€who€drove€car€victim€was€Ô_ÔkidnappedÔ_ÔÏin€that€co„defendant€had€shot€victim€13€times€was€foundÏspecifically€Ô_ÔdisservingÔ_Ô€to€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô.€€Opinion€does€make€pointÏthat€statement€to€friend€or€acquaintance€in€Ô_ÔnoncoerciveÔ_ÔÏatmosphere€is€more€trustworthy€than€statement€produced€byÏpolice€interrogation.€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(e)à0¸ ` x` xàòòPeople€v.€Fuentesóó€(1998)€61€Cal.App.4th€956ó ó.€€AppellateÐ °"  Ðcourt€affirms€admission€of€statements€by€three€accomplices€toÏpolice,€after€accomplices€take€Fifth€Amendment.€€DefendantÏwas€driver€of€car,€three€others€get€out€of€car,€attempt€to€robÏand€then€kill€person.€€Accomplicesðð€statements€said€that€€threeÏwho€left€car€confronted€victim€with€intent€to€rob,€that€oneÏdemanded€money,€two€were€armed,€one€did€shooting.€ÏReferences€to€driver€defendant€had€been€redacted.€€AppellateÏcourt€holds€redacted€statements€were€solely€and€specificallyÏagainst€interest€of€Ô_ÔdeclarantsÔ_Ô,€hence€admissible€underÏEvidence€Code€section€1230€hearsay€exception.€€AlthoughÐ ,`'* Ðadmits€showing€of€trustworthiness€is€required€for€admissionÏunder€Evidence€Code€section€1230€and€for€ConfrontationÏClause€analysis,€court€does€not€discuss€unreliability€producedÏby€police€interrogation.€€Of€doubtful€validity€after€òòDuarteóó.Ð0*€%(¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(f)à0¸ ` x` xàòòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔBrydenÔ_Ôóó€(1998)€63€Cal.App.4th€159ó ó.€€AccompliceÐ ,`'* Ðsends€jail€ð ðkiteðð€to€a€second€accomplice€which€is€redacted€toÏexcise€any€statements€directly€implicating€defendant,€thenÐ ð-@), Ðadmitted€as€a€declaration€against€interest.€€Appellate€courtÏrules€that€jail€kite€between€accomplices€does€not€satisfyÏconstitutional€requirement€of€trustworthiness.€€Much€of€whatÏwas€admitted€was€not€directly€against€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ôððs€interest,€andÏseemed€to€be€motivated€by€decision€to€please€and€proveÏloyalty€to€other€accomplice.€€However,€error€analyzed€as€onlyÏstate€evidentiary€error,€because€the€statement€did€not€directlyÏimplicate€defendant,€and€jury€told€it€could€not€use€againstÏdefendant.€€Rejects€defendantððs€argument€that€kite€enhancedÏcredibility€of€second€accomplice,€who€testified€againstÏdefendant.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(g)à0¸ ` x` xàòòPeople€v.€Wilsonóó€(1993)€17€Cal.App.4th€271ó ó.€€DefendantÐ ð@  Ðbeing€prosecuted€for€shooting€at€two€Hispanics€after€theyÏaccidentally€hit€his€car€while€parking.€€Wife€tells€policeÏdefendant€called€her€from€jail,€told€her€to€take€a€gun€he€hadÏused€to€ð ðshoot€the€Mexicansðð€and€hide€it,€which€she€did.€ÏWife€asserts€marital€privilege€at€trial.€Trial€court€admitsÏstatements€as€declarations€against€penal€interest.€€AppellateÏcourt€rules€statements€were€specifically€Ô_ÔdisservingÔ_Ô€to€wife,Ïbecause€they€did€subject€her€to€criminal€liability€as€anÏaccessory.€€Notes€there€was€no€blame€shifting,€sinceÏuncontradicted€that€wife€was€not€involved€in€actual€shooting.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌò òà  à4.à0 ` àSummary€of€What€to€Argue€in€Favor€of€ExclusionÐ0€` (#` (# Ðó óÌà  àà8 ` à(a)à0¸ ` x` xàStatement€not€within€declaration€against€interest€hearsayÐ ` Ðexception,€due€to€lack€of€showing€of€unavailability,€orÏbecause€not€every€part€of€statement€is€specifically€Ô_ÔdisservingÔ_ÔÏto€Ô_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô,€or€because€lack€of€general€showing€ofÏtrustworthiness.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(b)à0¸ ` x` xàIf€not€within€hearsay€exception,€then€also€admission€ofÐ °"  Ðstatement€violates€Confrontation€Clause,€because€not€withinÏfirmly€rooted€hearsay€exception.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(c)à0¸ ` x` xàEven€if€within€hearsay€exception,€admission€of€statementÐ p&À!$ Ðviolates€Confrontation€Clause€because€hearsay€statements€ofÏaccomplice€which€incriminate€others€are€not€within€a€firmlyÏrooted€hearsay€exception,€or€are€presumptively€suspect,€notÏreliable.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(d)à0¸ ` x` xàRedaction€to€eliminate€specific€references€to€defendant€areÐ ,`'* Ðinadequate€because€they€tip€jury€off€to€fact€that€a€name€hasÏbeen€deleted.Ðð-@),¸ x¸ x Їò òB.à0  àÔ‡ X¾ÑXXXÔEXCLUSION€OF€DEFENSE€EVIDENCE:€CONSTITUTIONALó óÔ#†X¾ÑXX X¾Ñ ;#ÔÔ‡ X¾ÑXXX¾ÑÔ€ò òANDÔ#†X¾ÑXX X¾Ñ~;#ÔÔ‡ X¾ÑXXX¾ÑÔ€€STATUTORYÐ ° ÐISSUESÐ (#(# Ðó óÌò òà  à1.€à8 ` àEstablishing€That€Exclusion€of€Evidence€Violates€a€Defendant'sÐ €Ð ÐFederal€Constitutional€RightsÐ ` x` x Ðó óÌà  àà ` àò ò(a)à0 ¸ àNature€of€federal€rightsó óÐP  ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà8 ` àMost€recent€United€States€Supreme€Court€pronouncements€on€federalÏconstitutional€rights€implicated€by€exclusion€of€relevant€defenseÏevidence€shows€somewhat€schizophrenic€nature€of€Ô_ÔcaselawÔ_Ô.€€InÏòòMontana€v.€Ô_ÔEgelhoffÔ_Ôóó€(1996)€518€U.S.€37,€the€plurality€opinion€ofÐ P  ÐJustice€Scalia€surveys€the€constitutional€scene€and€pronounces€"Thus,Ïthe€holding€of€òòChambers€[v.€Mississippióó€(1973)€410€U.S.€284]€„„€ifÐ à0  Ðone€can€be€discerned€from€such€a€fact„intensive€case€„„€is€certainly€notÏthat€a€defendant€is€denied€`a€fair€opportunity€to€defend€against€theÏState's€accusations'€whenever€`critical€evidence'€favorable€to€him€isÏexcluded,€but€rather€that€erroneous€evidentiary€rulings€can,€inÏcombination,€rise€to€the€level€of€a€due€process€violation."€€(518€U.S.Ïat€p.€53.)€€Scalia's€plurality€opinion€reiterates€"we€were€òònotóó€settingÐ €Ð Ðforth€an€absolute€entitlement€to€introduce€crucial,€relevant€evidence,"Ïand€stresses€that€entitlement€yields€to€"`any€valid€state€justification,'"Ïciting€òòCrane€v.€Kentuckyóó€(1986)€476€U.S.€683,€690„691.€€(òòIbidóó.)ÐP ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àDissenting€opinion€of€Justice€O'Connor€stated€that€"the€propositionÏthat€due€process€requires€a€fair€opportunity€to€present€a€defense€is€notÏnew."€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€62.)€Reads€òòChambers€v.€Mississippióó€as€aÐ ` Ðconstitutional€"prohibition€on€enforcement€of€state€evidentiary€rulesÏthat€lead,€without€sufficient€justification,€to€the€establishment€of€guiltÏby€suppression€of€evidence€supporting€the€defendant's€case."€€(òòIbid.óó)Ðà0` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àIn€òòChambersóó,€the€defendant€had€been€prevented€from€cross„Ð À! Ðexamining€his€own€witness,€who€had€made€an€out€of€court€swornÏconfession€to€the€murder€for€which€Chambers€was€being€prosecuted,Ïwhich€he€recanted€at€trial,€due€to€Mississippi's€"voucher"€rule.€ÏEvidence€of€the€witness's€confession€of€murder€to€three€otherÏwitnesses€was€excluded€on€hearsay€grounds.€€The€U.S.€SupremeÏCourt€found€a€due€process€violation€and€granted€habeas.€€Court€foundÏthat€due€process€right€to€confrontation€violated,€since€petitionerÏshould€have€been€able€to€cross€examine€his€own€witness,€whoseÏtestimony€on€direct€recanting€the€sworn€confession€was€adverse.€ÏAlso,€exclusion€of€evidence€of€confession€to€three€others€violatesÏfundamental€right€to€present€witnesses€in€own€defense.€€TestimonyÏexcluded€"bore€persuasive€assurances€of€trustworthiness€and€thus€wasÏwell€within€the€basic€rationale€of€the€[hearsay]€exception€forÐ ð-@), Ðdeclarations€against€interest.€€That€testimony€also€was€critical€toÏChambers'€defense."€€(410€U.S.€at€p.€302.)Ð ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àIn€òòCrane€v.€Kentucky,€supraóó,€476€U.S.€683€the€court€reversed€aÐ €Ð Ðconviction€because€of€exclusion€of€evidence€of€the€circumstances€ofÏhis€interrogation€suggesting€it€was€coerced,€on€grounds€thatÏvoluntariness€of€the€confession€had€been€determined€by€judge.€€CourtÏterms€it€"an€evidentiary€ruling€that€deprived€petitioner€of€hisÏfundamental€constitutional€right€to€a€fair€opportunity€to€present€aÏdefense."€€(òòId.óó,€at€p.€687.)Ð p ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àòòCraneóó€refers€to€the€somewhat€uncertain€doctrinal€bases€of€theÐ P  Ð"meaningful€opportunity€to€present€a€complete€defense,"€saying€itÏexists,€"whether€rooted€directly€in€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€theÏFourteenth€Amendment,€òòChambers€v.€Mississippi,€supraóó,€or€in€theÐ Ð  ÐCompulsory€Process€or€Confrontation€clauses€of€the€SixthÏAmendment€.€.€."€€(òòId.óó,€at€p.€690.)€€Right€is€defined€(by€unanimousÐ ° Ðcourt)€as€preventing€exclusion€of€"competent€reliable€evidence€.€.€.Ïwhen€such€evidence€is€central€to€the€defendant's€claim€of€innocence.€ÏIn€the€absence€of€any€valid€state€justification,€exclusion€of€this€kindÏof€exculpatory€evidence€deprives€a€defendant€of€the€basic€right€toÏhave€the€prosecution's€case€encounter€and€`survive€the€crucible€ofÏmeaningful€adversarial€testing.'€€òòUnited€States€v.€Ô_ÔCronicÔ_Ôóó,€466€U.S.Ð P  Ð648,€656€(1984)."€€(òòIbid.óó)Ð@` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àIn€òòFranklin€v.€Henryóó€(9th€Cir.€1997)€122€F.3d€1270,€the€courtÐ  p Ðconsidered€whether€exclusion€of€evidence€that€the€alleged€victim€ofÏa€child€molest€had€made€false€accusations€of€molestation€against€herÏmother€was€error€of€constitutional€magnitude.€€Court€states:€€"TheÏexplicit€testimony€bore€on€the€credibility€of€the€only€percipientÏwitness€against€Franklin.€€If€believed€by€the€jury,€Franklin's€testimonyÏwould€have€shown€Ô_ÔShaynaÔ_Ô€capable€of€fantasies€about€her€motherÏanalogous€to€the€charge€she€made€against€Franklin.€€Exclusion€of€theÏevidence€deprived€Franklin€`of€the€basic€right€to€have€the€prosecutor'sÏcase€encounter€and€ððsurvive€the€crucible€of€meaningful€[adversarial]Ïtesting.'€[Citation.]"€€(òòId.óó,€at€p.€1273.)Ѐ%Ð #` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àò ò(b)à0¸ ` x` xàApplicable€prejudice€test€for€denial€of€due€process€right€toÐ `'°"% Ðpresent€complete€defenseó óÐP( #&¸ x¸ x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àApplicable€test€on€direct€appeal€appears€to€be€òòChapman€v.€CaliforniaóóÐ 0*€%( Ð(1967)€386€U.S.€14.€€(See€òòCrane€v.€Kentucky,€supraóó,€476€U.S.€683,Ð  +p&) Ðstating€that€"the€erroneous€ruling€of€the€trial€court€is€subject€toÏharmless€error€analysis€.€.€.€€cf.€òòDelaware€v.€Van€Ô_ÔArsdallÔ_Ôóó€[(1986)€475Ð -P(+ ÐU.S.€673]."€(òòId.óó,€at€p.€691.)€€òòCraneóó€remanded€case€to€state€court€forÐ ð-@), Ðdetermination€of€state's€claim€that€the€error€was€harmless€because€theÏsame€evidence€excluded€came€in€through€other€witnesses.Ð ` x` x ÐÌò òà  àà ` à(c)à8 ¸ àPractice€tipsó ó€Ð€Ð¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà0 ` àà ¸ àò ò(1)à0` (#` (#àClearly€federalize€your€claimó ó.Ð` °(#(# ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòDuncan€v.€Henryóó€(1994)€513€U.S.€364€[130€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_ÔÐ @  Ð2d€865],€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€vacated€a€grant€ofÏfederal€habeas€because€the€petitioner€had€in€his€stateÏappeal€argued€only€that€admission€of€evidenceÏviolated€Evidence€Code€section€352€and€caused€aÏmiscarriage€of€justice€under€the€state€law€prejudiceÏstandard.€€"If€a€habeas€petitioner€wishes€to€claim€thatÏan€evidentiary€ruling€at€a€state€court€trial€denied€himÏthe€due€process€of€law€guaranteed€by€the€FourteenthÏAmendment,€he€must€say€so,€not€only€in€federal€court,Ïbut€in€state€court."Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àò ò(2)à  àFederalize€the€claim€on€appeal€even€if€noÐ €Ð Ðassertion€of€federal€due€process€denial€is€made€inÏtrial€courtó ó.Ð`°¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àUnclear€if€such€specification€necessary,€assumingÏgeneral€compliance€with€Evidence€Code€section€354.€ÏSince€proper€offer€of€proof€would€establish€thatÏevidence€was€relevant,€admissible,€and€should€not€beÏexcluded,€there€would€be€little€gained€in€terms€ofÏpolicy€of€giving€chance€for€trial€court€to€avoid€error,Ïto€require€specification€of€federal€due€processÏgrounds.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àAdditionally,€if€appellate€court€either€ignores€federalÏconstitutional€argument€(as€Sixth€District€did€inÏòòPeople€v.€Franklin,€supraóó,€25€Cal.App.4th€328),€or€ifÐ $à" Ðit€denies€claim€solely€on€merits,€any€potentialÏprocedural€default€is€cured€as€far€as€federal€habeasÏreview€is€concerned.Ô#†X¾ÑXX X¾ÑÇ;#ÔÔ‡ X¾ÑXXX¾ÑÔÐ`'°"%¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àò ò2.à0 ` àState€Law€Permitting€Discretionary€Exclusion€of€Relevant€Defense€Evidence:€Ð @)$' ÐEvidence€Code€Section€352ó óÐ0*€%(` (#` (# ÐÌò òà  àà ` à(a)à0 ¸ àStatutory€provisionó ó€Ð,`'*¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà ` àEvidence€Code€section€352€provides:Ð ð-@), Їà  àà8 ` à"The€court€in€its€discretion€may€exclude€evidence€if€its€probativeÏvalue€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€probability€that€its€admissionÏwill€(a)€necessitate€undue€consumption€of€time€or€(b)€createÏsubstantial€danger€of€undue€prejudice,€of€confusing€the€issues,€or€ofÏmisleading€the€jury."Ð ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àò ò(b)€à0 ¸ àApplication€of€provision€by€trial€judgeó óÐP  ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà8 ` à"That€balancing€process€requires€consideration€of€the€relationshipÏbetween€the€evidence€and€the€relevant€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€it,Ïwhether€the€evidence€is€relevant€to€the€main€or€only€a€collateral€issue,Ïand€the€necessity€of€the€evidence€to€the€proponent's€case€as€well€asÏthe€reasons€set€forth€in€section€352€for€exclusion."€€(òòKessler€v.€GrayóóÐ ð@  Ð(1978)€77€Cal.App.3d€284,€291.)Ð ` x` x ÐÌà  àà8 ` àPrejudicial€evidence€is€evidence€"that€uniquely€tends€to€evoke€anÏemotional€bias€against€a€party€as€an€individual,€while€having€onlyÏslight€probative€value€with€regard€to€the€issues."€€€(òòPeople€v.Ð  ð ÐÔ_ÔCrittendonÔ_Ôóó€(1994)€9€Cal.4th€83,€134.)Ðà` x` x ÐÌÑ€AîÑà  àà ` àò ò(c)€à0 ¸ àStandard€of€appellate€reviewó óÐpÀ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà8 ` àòòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔMinifieÔ_Ôóó€(1996)€13€Cal.4th€1055,€1070:€€"Rulings€underÐ P  ÐEvidence€Code€section€352€come€within€the€trial€court's€discretionÏand€will€not€be€overturned€absent€an€abuse€of€that€discretion."Ð ` x` x ÐÌò òà  àà ` à(d)€à0 ¸ àLimits€on€trial€court€discretionó óÐ`¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àò ò(1)€à0¸ ¸ àWholesale€exclusion€of€evidence€relevant€toÐ ð@ Ðthe€prime€theory€of€the€defense.Ð    Ðó óÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Wrightóó€(1985)€39€Cal.3d€576,€the€courtÐ À! Ðfound€an€abuse€of€discretion€when€the€trial€courtÏexcluded€evidence€that€homicide€victim's€urine€wasÏpositive€for€morphine,€indicating€use€within€24€hoursÏof€death.€€Defendant's€defense€was€that€he€wasÏconfronted€by€victim€who€threatened€him€and€accusedÏhim€of€messing€around€with€his€wife,€when€defendant,Ïthough€residing€in€the€same€trailer€park,€did€not€knowÏvictim€or€his€wife.€€Court€holds€evidence€of€recentÏheroin€use€would€corroborate€defendant's€claim€ofÏirrational€behavior€by€victim,€and€impeach€credibilityÏof€main€prosecution€witness,€victim's€wife,€who€saidÏvictim€had€not€recently€used.€€Court€states,€"EvidenceÏthat€is€relevant€to€the€prime€theory€of€the€defenseÐ ð-@), Ðcannot€be€excluded€in€wholesale€fashion€merelyÏbecause€the€trial€would€be€simpler€without€it."€€(òòId.óó,€atÐ  ð Ðp.€585.)Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àCourt€also€states€that€"the€purported€prejudice€to€theÏprosecution€cannot€be€based€on€mere€speculation€andÏconjecture."€€(òòIbid.óó)€€However,€court€in€òòWrightóó€wentÐ P   Ðon€to€uphold€exclusion€of€evidence€that€victim€wasÏengaged€in€sale€of€heroin,€possessed€heroin€for€saleÏand€was€under€the€influence€in€an€incident€two€yearsÏbefore€his€death€in€which€he€violently€resisted€arrest.€ÏEvidence€of€victim's€violent€resistance€to€arrest€wasÏadmitted,€all€references€to€heroin€excluded.€€Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àò ò(2)€Exclusion€due€to€negative€credibilityÐ Ð  Ðdetermination€by€judge.Ð ¸ ¸  Ðó óÌñ¤ñÌñ¤ñà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔCudjoÔ_Ôóó€(1993)€6€Cal.4th€585,€defendantÐ  ð Ðoffered€evidence€of€a€jailhouse€inmate€that€defendant'sÏbrother€had€confessed€to€the€murder€defendant€wasÏaccused€of,€in€situation€where€other€evidenceÏsuggested€defendant's€brother€was€perpetrator.€€TrialÏcourt€excluded€evidence€because€it€found€informantÏtestimony€"unreliable€and€untrustworthy."€€SupremeÏCourt€ruled€that€evidence€would€not€have€consumedÏundue€time,€or€confused€issues,€and€that€evidence€hadÏsubstantial€probative€value€and€was€necessary€sinceÏthere€was€no€comparable€evidence€of€brother's€guilt.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌñ¥ñÐ  à0 Ðñ¥ñà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àò ò(3)€à0¸ ¸ àExclusion€due€to€gross€Ô_ÔmisbalancingÔ_Ô€ofÐ à0 Ðrelevant€factors.Ð    Ðó óÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔMinifieÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€13€Cal.4th€1055,€the€courtÐ °"  Ðruled€that€exclusion€of€evidence€of€prior€threats€toÏdefendant€by€third€parties€associated€with€victim€wasÏan€abuse€of€discretion.€€In€òòÔ_ÔMinifieÔ_Ôóó,€defendant€hadÐ €%Ð # Ðkilled€a€member€of€the€Knight€family.€€He€wasÏthreatened€and€attacked€in€jail,€and€threats€fromÏfriends€of€the€Knight€family€were€made€to€his€wife.€ÏThe€victim,€a€pallbearer€for€the€man€defendant€hadÏkilled,€approached€defendant,€asked€if€defendant€knewÏwho€he€was,€said,€"So€it€was€you,"€and€punchedÏdefendant,€knocking€him€to€the€floor.€€DefendantÏpulled€his€gun€and€fired,€striking€pallbearer€andÏbystander.€€After€holding€that€threats€from€thirdÐ ð-@), Ðparties€who€are€associated€with€victim€are€relevant€toÏissue€of€whether€defendant€reasonably€believed€thatÏserious€bodily€injury€was€about€to€be€inflicted€on€him,ÏSupreme€Court€held€that€judge's€exclusion€of€theÏevidence€was€abuse€of€section€352€discretion.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔMcAlpinÔ_Ôóó€(1991)€53€Cal.3d€1289,€the€courtÐ P   Ðheld€that€it€was€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€a€childÏmolestation€prosecution€to€exclude€evidence€byÏdefendant's€friends€that€they€had€observed€defendant'sÏbehavior€toward€their€minor€daughters,€and€that€inÏtheir€opinion€he€was€not€given€to€lewd€conduct€withÏchildren.€€(òòId.óó,€at€p.€1310,€n.€15.)€€The€court€noted€thatÐ ð@  Ðthe€testimony€was€admissible,€it€would€not€consumeÏmuch€time,€there€would€likely€not€be€extensive€crossÏexamination€since€defendant€had€no€prior€criminalÏrecord,€and€the€evidence€went€to€main€issue€in€case.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌò òà  àà ` à(e)€à8 ¸ àSpecific€determinations€of€prejudice€fromÐ à Ðerroneous€exclusion€of€defense€evidence€underÏsection€352Ð ¸ ¸  Ðó óÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔMinifieÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€13€Cal.4th€1055,€1071€theÐ P  ÐSuperior€Court€found€erroneous€exclusion€of€evidenceÏprejudicial€under€òòWatsonóó.€€The€excluded€evidenceÐ 0€ Ðconcerning€threats€from€third€parties€associated€withÏthe€person€defendant€shot€would€have€strengthenedÏthe€self„defense€considerably€by€showing€that€theÏKnight€crowd€had€already€killed€a€friend€of€defendantÏand€threatened€defendant€would€be€next.€€The€juryÏargument€of€the€prosecutor€"tips€the€scale€in€favor€ofÏfinding€prejudice,"€because€prosecutor€said€Ô_ÔMinifiesÔ_ÔÏalleged€fear€of€being€killed€by€the€Knight€crowd€wasÏcontrived€and€unsupported€by€evidence.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Wright,€supraóó,€39€Cal.€3d€576,€SupremeÐ €%Ð # ÐCourt€held€that€exclusion€of€evidence€that€decedentÏwas€under€the€influence€of€heroin€at€time€of€death€wasÏharmless€under€òòWatsonóó€standard.€€Court€faults€offer€ofÐ P( #& Ðproof€for€not€including€any€proposed€testimony€aboutÏthe€level€of€morphine€found€in€decedent's€urine€orÏsignificance€of€that€level.€€Claims€inference€betweenÏheroin€influence€and€aggressive,€irrational€behaviorÏwas€weak,€and€other€witnesses€contradictedÏdefendant's€claim€that€decedent€threatened€him.Ðð-@),¸ ¸  Їà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔCudjoÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€6€Cal.4th€585,€court€findsÐ ° Ðexclusion€of€evidence€of€another's€confession€to€theÏcharged€murder€is€harmless€under€òòWatsonóó.€€Court€soÐ à Ðholds€despite€admitting€that€person€allegedlyÏconfessing€was€other€prime€suspect€in€murder,Ïdisclosed€actual€crime€scene€details,€and€was€closer€inÏappearance€to€description€from€sole€eyewitness.€ÏCourt€relies€on€fact€that€semen€sample€from€victimÏincluded€defendant€but€excluded€his€brother€asÏpossible€donor,€and€that€defendant's€story€that€he€hadÏtraded€drugs€for€sex€with€victim€was€contrary€to€allÏother€testimony€about€victim's€lifestyle€and€values.€ÏAlso€used€trial€judge's€negative€credibilityÏdetermination€and€"obvious€indicia€of€unreliability"€ofÏinmate€witness€to€determine€a€more€favorableÏoutcome€for€defendant€was€not€reasonably€probable.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Franklinóó€(1994)€25€Cal.App.4th€328,Ð  ð ÐSixth€District€determines€that€exclusion€of€evidenceÏfrom€defendant€that€alleged€child€molest€victim€hadÏsaid€that€her€mother€had€licked€her€vagina€was€error.ÏCourt€holds€error€harmless€under€miscarriage€ofÏjustice€standard,€despite€admitting€that€case€was€oneÏon€one€credibility€contest.€€Court€says€that€evidence€ofÏprior€false€accusation€was€relevant€to€impeachÏcredibility,€but€was€cumulative€of€other€evidenceÏintroduced€for€that€purpose,€i.e.,€evidence€that€victimÏonce€dreamed€that€her€mother€and€defendant€wereÏkissing,€had€altered€her€testimony€to€make€it€lessÏpainful€for€her€mother,€and€may€have€had€access€toÏthe€Playboy€channel.òòóóÐÐ ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àBut€see€òòFranklin€v.€Henryóó€(9th€Cir.€1997)€122€F.3dÐ °"  Ð1270,€finding€federal€constitutional€error€in€exclusionÏof€evidence,€and€declaring€"grave€doubt€as€to€theÏeffect€of€the€error."€€Habeas€relief€granted€underÏòòÔ_ÔO'NealÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔMcAninchÔ_Ôóó€(1995)€513€U.S.€432.€€NinthÐ p&À!$ ÐCircuit€characterizes€prosecutor's€case€as€not€strong,Ïnoting€its€reliance€on€Child€Sexual€AbuseÏAccommodation€Syndrome,€the€disputed€nature€of€theÏmedical€evidence,€and€noting€that€the€excludedÏevidence€could€have€persuaded€the€jury€that€theÏalleged€victim€fantasized€about€sex.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌò òÑ„°Ñó óÔ#†X¾ÑXX X¾ÑQ\#ÔÔ‡ X¾ÑXXX¾ÑÔà  àò ò3.à ` àIssues€Regarding€the€Trial€Recordó óÐ ð-@), ÐÐ à.0*- Ðà  àà ` àò ò(a)à ¸ àOffer€of€proofó ó€Ð ° ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àò ò(1)à0  àStatutory€basis€and€purposes€of€requirements:ó óÐà(#(# ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àEvidence€Code€section€354€states:€€"A€verdict€orÏfinding€shall€not€be€set€aside,€nor€shall€the€judgmentÏor€decision€based€thereon€be€reversed,€by€reason€ofÏthe€erroneous€exclusion€of€evidence€unless€the€courtÏwhich€passes€upon€the€effect€of€the€error€or€errors€isÏof€the€opinion€that€the€error€or€errors€complained€ofÏresulted€in€a€miscarriage€of€justice€and€it€appears€onÏrecord€that:Ð ¸ ¸  Ѐà  àà ` àà0 ¸ àÐð@ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àà  à(a)à0h¸ ¸ àThe€substance,€purpose,€and€relevanceÐ à0  Ðof€the€excluded€evidence€was€madeÏknown€to€the€court€by€the€questionsÏasked,€an€offer€of€proof,€or€by€anyÏother€means;Ð h h  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àà  à(b)à0h¸ ¸ àThe€rulings€of€the€court€madeÐ €Ð Ðcompliance€with€subdivision€(a)€futile;ÏorÐ h h  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àà  à(c)à0h¸ ¸ àThe€evidence€was€sought€by€questionsÐ @ Ðasked€during€cross„examination€orÏÔ_ÔrecrossÔ_Ô„examination."Ð h h  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ à(See€Jefferson,€California€Evidence€Ô_ÔBenchbookÔ_Ô€(3d€edÏ1997)€Vol.€I,€ðð€20.7;€Ô_ÔWitkinÔ_Ô,€California€Evidence€(3dÏed€1986)€Vol.€3,€ðð2041.)Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àPurposes€of€rule€ñœñmost€recently€ñœñdefined€in€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔWhittÔ_Ôóó€(1990)€51Ð À! ÐCal.3d€620,€648:€€"The€problem€is€illustrated€byÏEvidence€Code€section€354,€which€has€long€prohibitedÏstate€appellate€courts€from€reversing€a€judgment€basedÏon€the€`erroneous€exclusion€of€evidence'€unless€thereÏis€a€`miscarriage€of€justice,'€òòandóó€the€`òòsubstance,Ð p&À!$ Ðóópurpose,€òòandóó€relevance€of€the€excluded€evidence€wasÐ `'°"% Ðòòmade€knownóó€to€the€[trial]€court€by€the€questionsÐ P( #& Ðasked,€an€offer€of€proof,€or€by€any€other€means.'€Ï(Italics€added.)€€The€statute€serves€two€importantÏpurposes€where,€as€here,€an€appellant€complains€thatÏquestions€he€asked€of€his€own€witness€at€trial€wereÏwrongly€disallowed€on€relevance€grounds.€€First,€theÏ`offer„of„proof'€requirement€gives€the€trial€court€anÏopportunity€to€change€its€ruling€in€the€event€theÐ à.0*- Ðquestion€is€so€vague€or€preliminary€that€the€relevanceÏis€not€clear.€€[Citations.]€€Second,€even€where€theÏòòquestionóó€is€relevant€on€its€face,€the€òòappellate€courtóóÐ à Ðmust€know€the€`substance'€or€content€of€the€òòansweróó€inÐ €Ð Ðorder€to€assess€prejudice.€€[Citation.]€€ThisÏrequirement€is€met€only€where€the€wording€or€contextÏof€the€question€makes€the€expected€answer€clear,€orÏwhere€the€proponent€of€the€evidence€makes€an€offer€ofÏproof."€€òòóóÐ0 €¸ ¸  ÐÌÑ€Ñò òà  àà ` àà ¸ à(2)à0  àWhen€offer€of€proof€is€not€required.Ð` (#(# ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  à(a)à0 h àWhen€question€discloses€admissibility.Ðð@ h(#h(# Ðó óÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€McGeeóó€(1947)€31€Cal.2d€229,€242,€theÐ Ð  Ðdefense€called€a€medical€expert€and€posed€aÏhypothetical€question€regarding€the€treatingÏphysician's€gross€negligence€of€a€shooting€victim€asÏthe€cause€of€death.€€Holding:€€"Defendant€made€noÏformal€offer€of€proof,€but€such€offer€was€not€necessaryÏbecause€the€questions€themselves,€together€withÏcolloquies€with€the€trial€judge,€in€the€light€ofÏpreviously€introduced€testimony,€clearly€disclose€theirÏpurpose,€and€since€they€were€directed€to€defendant'sÏown€witness,€they€indicate€that€the€answers€wereÏexpected€to€be€favorable€to€the€defendant."Ð ¸ ¸  Ðà  àà ` àà0 ¸ àÐ ¸ (#¸ (# Ðà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔWhittÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€court€determined€thatÐ P Ðquestions€"Do€you€want€to€live?"€and€"Where€do€youÏdesire€to€live?"€were€not€"facially€irrelevant"€becauseÏ"the€range€of€constitutionally€pertinent€mitigation€[inÏa€capital€case]€is€so€broad."€€(51€Cal.3d€at€p.€647.)Ð ¸ ¸  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àò òà  à(b)à0 h àWhen€judge's€rulings€make€offerР#ð!h(#h(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h à€futile.Ìó óÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòBeneficial€etc.€Ins.€Co.,€v.€Kurt€Ô_ÔHitkeÔ_Ô€&€Co.€óó(1956)Ð p&À!$ Ð46€Cal.2d€517,€522,€the€court€held:€€"Where€an€entireÏclass€of€evidence€has€been€declared€inadmissible€orÏthe€trial€court€has€clearly€intimated€it€will€receive€noÏevidence€of€a€particular€class€or€upon€a€particularÏissue,€an€offer€of€proof€is€not€a€prerequisite€to€raisingÏthe€question€on€appeal,€and€an€offer,€if€made,€may€beÏbroad€and€general."Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àòòÔ_ÔMontezÔ_Ô€v.€Superior€Courtóó€(1970)€10€Cal.App.3d€343,Ð à.0*- ÐÑÑâ âÑ°°ÑÑ°„Ñâ âÑ  Ñ351,€notes€statutory€language€that€substance,€purposeÏand€relevance€can€be€shown€"by€any€other€means."€ÏòòÔ_ÔMontezÔ_Ôóó€holds€that€trial€court€refusal€to€allowÐ à Ðdefendant€to€call€any€of€the€70€judges€who€selectedÏgrand€jury€members,€unless€a€prima€facie€case€ofÏdiscrimination€was€first€proved,€obviated€need€forÏoffer€of€proof€regarding€their€testimony.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àà  àò ò(c)à0h¸ ¸ àEvidence€sought€by€questions€askedÐ 0 € Ðduring€cross€or€Ô_ÔrecrossÔ_Ô:ó óÐ p h h  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àReason€for€exception:€€requiring€cross€examiner€toÏdisclose€object€of€questioning€would€forewarn€witnessÏand€hamper€the€cross€examiner.€€Ð ¸ ¸  Ðà  àà ` àà8 ¸ à(Ô_ÔWitkinÔ_Ô,€òòop.€cit.€supra,óó€ðð2045,€citing€òòPeople€v.€JonesóóÐ Ð  Ð(1911)€160€Cal.€358,€363.)Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àThe€recent€case€òòÔ_ÔNienhouseÔ_Ô€v.€Superior€Courtóó€(1996)Ð  ð Ð42€Cal.App.4th€83,€93,€states€that€this€exception€isÏ"simply€a€reaffirmation€of€the€constitutional€right€ofÏcross„examination."€€òòÔ_ÔNienhouseÔ_Ôóó€then€notes€thatÐ pÀ Ðinformation€sought€on€cross„examination€from€policeÏofficer€concerned€defendant's€statements,€a€topic€notÏcovered€on€direct,€and€thus€not€a€proper€subject€areaÏfor€cross„examination.€€Consequently,€offer€of€proofÏwas€required.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àò ò(3)à  àSpecificity€of€offer€as€to€substance€of€evidenceó ó.Ð P ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àOffer€must€"indicate€with€precision€the€evidence€to€beÏpresented€and€the€witnesses€who€are€to€give€it."€Ï(Ô_ÔWitkinÔ_Ô,€òòop.€cit.€supraóó,€ðð2042.)ÐÀ!¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àInòò€In€re€Mark€C.óó€(1992)€7€Cal.App.4th€433,€theÐ  #ð! Ðdefense€offered€expert€testimony€regarding€father'sÏlack€of€propensity€to€molest€in€a€dependency€actionÏalleging€he€had€molested€his€daughter.€€In€trial€court,Ïfather's€attorney€asserts€that€basis€of€expert€opinion€isÏresults€of€arousal€test€involving€a€penileÏÔ_ÔplethysmographÔ_Ô€and€33€other€standardized€tests.€€OnÏappeal,€father€concedes€that€penile€Ô_ÔplethysmographÔ_ÔÏnot€yet€accepted€by€scientific€community,€butÏcounters€that€the€expert€opinion€was€also€based€on€33Ïother€tests.€€Court€of€Appeal€finds€noncomplianceÏwith€Evidence€Code€section€354€because,€"Neither€theÐ ð-@), ÐÑAîÑâ âÑÑÑ  ÑÑ °Ñâ âÑ  Ñtrial€court€nor€this€court€has€been€given€anyÏmeaningful€information€about€the€nature,€content€orÏimport€of€these€various€standardized€tests€.€.€.€.€ÏBecause€of€the€uncertainty€in€the€record€concerningÏthe€nature€of€the€proffered€evidence,€we€cannot€sayÏthe€juvenile€court€erred€in€excluding€it."€€(òòId.óó,€at€p.Ð ` ° Ð445.)Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔSperlÔ_Ôóó€(1976)€54€Cal.App.3d€640,Ð 0 € Ðdefendant€made€an€offer€of€proof€in€an€attempt€toÏhave€court€give€him€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€issue€ofÏdiscriminatory€prosecution.€€Defense€counsel€gaveÏnames€of€witnesses€he€wanted€to€call,€but€did€notÏspecify€what€their€testimony€would€be.€€Held,Ï"defendant's€offer€of€proof€.€.€.€was€totally€inadequateÏ.€.€.€.€€We€have€no€way€of€knowing€what€the€evidenceÏat€the€requested€hearing€would€have€shown€.€.€."€€(òòId.óó,Ð ° Ðat€p.€657.)Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àà ¸ àà  à(a)à0h` x` xàShowing€of€purpose€and€relevance.ЀÐhxhx ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àà  à(1)à0h¸ ¸ àGeneral€principles€of€relevance:€€SeeÐ `° ÐEvidence€Code€section€210;€Jefferson,Ð P  Ðòòop.óó€òòcit.óó,€òòsupraóó,€ðððð€21.1€to€21.30.)€Ð @ ÐEvidence€must€have€tendency€inÏreason€to€prove€or€disprove€anyÏdisputed€fact€that€is€of€consequence€toÏdetermination€of€the€action.€€SectionÏ210€specifies€that€relevant€evidenceÏincludes€evidence€relevant€toÏcredibility€of€witness€or€hearsayÏÔ_ÔdeclarantÔ_Ô.Ð h h  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àà  à(2)à0h¸ ¸ àDeficient€showings:€€In€òòPeople€v.Ð  #ð! ÐÔ_ÔSchmiesÔ_Ôóó€(1996)€44€Cal.App.4th€38,Ð $à" Ðdefendant€was€charged€with€homicideÏin€the€death€of€citizen€killed€whenÏstruck€by€a€police€car€pursuingÏdefendant€in€a€high€speed€chase.€€AtÏtrial,€defense€made€offer€to€presentÏexpert€testimony€to€proveÏunreasonableness€of€actions€ofÏpursuing€police€officer.€€Court€ofÏAppeal€held€that€reasonableness€ofÏconduct€of€pursuing€officers€not€inÏissue€in€prosecution€for€grossÐ à.0*- Ðvehicular€manslaughter,€and€that€onlyÏdisputed€issue€to€which€profferedÏevidence€had€potential€relevance€wasÏwhether€officers'€conduct€wasÏreasonably€foreseeable€response€toÏdefendant's€conduct.€€As€to€that€issue,Ïthe€items€of€evidence€which€had€beenÏproperly€specified€had€no€relevance.Ð h h  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔFauberÔ_Ôóó€(1992)€2€Cal.4th€792,€854,Ð  p  Ðdefense€offered€statements€of€missing€husbandÏallegedly€killed€by€defendant€to€effect€that€he€was€inÏa€bitter€custody€dispute€with€wife€and€that€she€had€aÏcontract€out€on€him.€€Statements€offered€to€impeachÏcredibility€of€wife,€but€hearsay€and€relevanceÏobjections€sustained.€€Supreme€Court€concedesÏevidence€was€relevant€to€prove€that€husbandÏvoluntarily€vanished€and€was€not€murdered,€and€wasÏÔ_ÔnonhearsayÔ_Ô€evidence€when€so€used,€but€since€thisÏground€not€specifically€raised€below,€defendant€didÏnot€preserve€issue€for€review.Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÌà  àà ` àà8 ¸ àIn€òòPeople€v.€Prideóó€(1992)€3€Cal.4th€195,€234„235,Ð P  Ðdefense€offered€tapes€of€six€and€a€half€hours€of€policeÏinterrogation,€after€prosecution€introduced€testimonyÏof€detective€on€a€few€discreet€points.€€Relevance€andÏpurpose€asserted€in€trial€court€was€to€proveÏdefendant's€"state€of€mind"€at€time€of€statements.€€OnÏappeal,€Supreme€Court€concedes€that€where€one€partyÏhas€introduced€part€of€a€statement,€opposing€partyÏmay€introduce€any€other€part€to€place€excerpts€inÏcontext.€€However,€"defendant€made€no€offer€of€proofÏas€to€how€the€tapes€of€his€police€interviews€mightÏcorrect€any€Ô_ÔmisimpressionsÔ_Ô€allegedly€created€by€theÏtestimony€and€transcripts€actually€before€the€jury."Ð ¸ ¸  ÐÔ#†X¾ÑXX X¾Ñ7‡#Ô