Saturday, June 27, 2020

Another 4/2 dissent

Another fascinating and passionate 4/2 dissent here, wondering what happened to the 'prejudicial error' requirement among other concerns. Some snippets from the dissent to whet your appetite to read all 88 pages of both opinions:

  • The opening line of the dissent: "I’m not sure how we got to this point in the present appeal."
  • Our state’s Constitution, our Evidence Code, and our Code of Civil Procedure require us to determine whether evidentiary errors are prejudicial. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; Evid. Code, § 353; Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)
  • The majority’s approach is not only wrong on the law, it’s wasteful and unnecessary in the present litigation.
  • The implications of the majority opinion are staggering. By treating error on a discretionary evidentiary ruling as reversible per se, the majority read the prejudice requirement out of our Supreme Court precedent (and our Evidence Code and our Code of Civil Procedure and our Constitution).
  • To make matters worse, the majority reach their result only by misinterpreting the trial court’s clear ruling. I cannot overstate how deeply I disagree with their treatment of this case. I therefore respectfully dissent.