Is evidence of poverty admissible in a criminal case?

Code section 352 objection." (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 955, overruled on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22.)

"Under the well-established rule, a defendant's poverty generally may not be admitted to prove a motive to commit a robbery or theft; reliance on such evidence is deemed unfair to the defendant, and its probative value is outweighed by the risk of prejudice." (People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1076.)

Some exceptions apply to the general rule that evidence of a defendant's poverty is inadmissible. "[E]vidence of the defendant's indebtedness or relative poverty may be admitted without undue prejudice to persons of limited means in order 'to eliminate other possible explanations for a defendant's sudden wealth after a theft offense.'" (People v. Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50, 96, overruled on other grounds in People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 421, fn. 22.) Evidence concerning the poverty of a defendant is also admissible if offered to refute a claim by the defendant that he or she did not commit the offense because the defendant was not in need of any money. (People v. Koontz, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1076.)