|
|
Clifford v. American Drug Stores8/22/2005
hall explain. Sav-On contends that it made repeated objections to the disputed testimony, and generally refers to 105 pages in the record where the testimony may be found. Those pages are set forth in a series of string citations, and Sav-On fails to refer to any particular page number where it might have interposed its objections. And it does not mention the grounds of any of its objections. Our review of the testimony has turned up hearsay objections, objections that questions were leading, compound, or called for a narrative, but no objection based upon a claim that the evidence was excessively prejudicial that Sav-On now wishes us to consider.
The erroneous admission of evidence is not preserved for appellate review unless it appears in the record that an objection was timely made, the specific ground of the objection was made clear to the trial court, and the objection was directed to the particular evidence to be excluded. (Evid. Code, § 353; Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1260.)
The exclusion of evidence on the ground that it is more prejudicial than probative is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. (Evid. Code, § 352.) "`The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion, and unless a clear case of abuse is shown and unless there has been a miscarriage of justice a reviewing court will not substitute its opinion and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power.' [Citations.]" (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566.)
"`It is the duty of a party to support the arguments in its briefs by appropriate reference to the record, which includes providing exact page citations.' [Citations.] If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived. [Citation.]" (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14(a)(1)(C).) "`The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error . . . .' [Citations.]" (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115.)
Since we have found the testimony to be relevant, and we deem Sav-On's argument that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative to have been forfeited, we do not reach the merits of its argument.
3. BAJI Instructions
Sav-On complains that the trial court gave several repetitive instructions that unduly emphasized Clifford's claims.
We agree that " roposed instructions which are argumentative and misleading should not be given. [Citation.] Instructions should not draw the jury's attention to particular facts. It is error to give and proper to refuse an instruction that unduly overemphasizes issues, theories or defenses either by repetition or by singling them out or making
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|