California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Marsh, E064447 (Cal. App. 2017):
Defendant did not raise any of these objections in the trial court. In order to preserve an evidentiary objection on appeal, however, a party must make a timely objection in the trial court "so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion." (Evid. Code, 353.) The purpose of this rule is to give the trial court a concrete legal proposition to pass on, to give the opponent an opportunity to cure the defect, and to prevent abuse. (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 434.) Consequently, in the absence of such an objection, the ground for objection is not cognizable on appeal. (Id. at pp. 433-434.) Accordingly, as defendant anticipated, we deem these grounds for objection to the evidence forfeited for appellate review. We address, instead, defendant's contention that his trial attorney provided constitutionally deficient representation by failing to object to the admission of evidence of defendant's gang membership on the grounds he now asserts.
Page 14
We may reject an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if we find that the defendant has failed to meet his or her burden of demonstrating prejudice. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 695-696.) In this context, prejudice means that there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome in the absence of counsel's alleged error. (Id. at p. 694.) Here, despite the prosecutor's argument that defendant was shown to be a violent gang member who had armed himself in anticipation of the confrontation, the jury acquitted him of both first and second degree murder, convicting him instead of voluntary manslaughter, and deadlocking on the charge of premeditated attempted murder. This strongly suggests that defendant's character for violence, whether it was proven through his admission of gang membership or his carjacking conviction, was not a factor in the jury's analysis of the evidence. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the jury would have acquitted him in the absence of the gang evidence.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.