People v. Harris CA1/5

DISCUSSION

We review challenges to trial court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. (People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 266.) The trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the “ ‘court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” (Evid. Code, § 350.)2 Evidence is relevant if it has a “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact

2 All further undesignated code references are to the Evidence Code.

2 that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (§ 210.) Evidence tends to prove a fact when it “ ‘renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Warner (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 900, 907– 908.) Harris does not dispute the relevance of the circumstance that the plastic bag had bills with serial numbers matching the serial number of the bill with drugs on the floor. However, she argues that additional evidence that the bills were counterfeit was not related to any fact of consequence to her charges and…