People v. Holford, 203 Cal. App. 4th 155

Holford, a registered sex offender, was convicted of possession of child pornography under Pen. Code § 311.11 based on a 25‑minute video found on his hard drive.
The trial court found he had a strike under the Three Strikes law and had served two prior prison terms, yielding an aggregate 14‑year sentence.
On appeal, Holford challenges the trial court’s admission of the entire video under Evidence Code § 352 and the related handling of evidentiary alternatives.
The trial court also admitted testimony about Holford’s prior molestation of his daughter, K.H., under evidentiary rules governing uncharged sexual offenses.
The video, Puebla Mexicana Girl, was found on the hard drive among thousands of files and depicted explicit acts with a young-looking performer.
Evidence regarding K.H.’s molestation occurred in 2002; Holford had been imprisoned for that act from 2002 to 2007.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 352 error occurred from entire video admission	Holford argues the full 25‑minute video is prejudicial and alternatives existed.	Holford contends the court should have edited or limited the video or accepted a stipulation.	No reversible error; no specific, timely alternatives were proffered; admission not abuse of discretion.
Whether the court should have reviewed the video before ruling under 352	Holford asserts the court should have reviewed the footage prior to ruling.	Holford maintains the court erred by not editing or limiting the video.	Trial court's pre‑view not required; under abuse‑of‑discretion standard, no 352 violation shown.
Whether admission of the entire video violated due process	Prosecutor argues probative value outweighed prejudicial effect; the video shows knowledge and possession.	Admitting the entire video would undermine fairness by undue prejudice.	Due process not violated; 352 balancing supports admission.
Whether admission of K.H.’s prior molestation violated due process	Evidence of prior molestation is probative of sexual interest in young girls and defendant’s knowledge/possession.	Falsetta requires strict 352 balancing; potential prejudice outweighs probative value.	No due process violation; 352 balancing and 1108 analysis support admissibility.

People v. Zambrano, 41 Cal.4th 1082 (Cal. 2007) (integral for evaluating 352 and 403 considerations in graphic video evidence)
People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009) (discussion of evidentiary editing and 352 balancing context)
People v. Pride, 3 Cal.4th 195 (Cal. 1992) (prior resolve on evidentiary discretion and prejudice)
People v. Partida, 37 Cal.4th 428 (Cal. 2005) (requirement for timely, specific objections to preserve 352 grounds)
People v. Cowan, 50 Cal.4th 401 (Cal. 2010) (forfeiture principles in in limine challenges to graphic evidence)
People v. Filson, 22 Cal.App.4th 1841 (Cal. App. 1994) (need for informed discretion; use of offers of proof)
People v. Memro, 11 Cal.4th 386 (Cal. 1995) (context for 352 balancing and high probative value of graphic evidence)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (stips and probative value of stipulations in element proof)
People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (due process considerations for uncharged sexual offenses under 1108; 352 safeguard)
People v. Loy, 52 Cal.4th 46 (Cal. 2011) (analysis of 1108 and credibility considerations)
People v. Story, 45 Cal.4th 1282 (Cal. 2009) (credibility and probative value of prior acts in severe crimes)
People v. Johnson, 185 Cal.App.4th 520 (Cal. App. 2010) (legislative history on propensity evidence in sexual offenses)
U.S. v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal analogs to 1108 admissibility concerns)