People v. Rivera, 133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 721

Defendant killed Ted Neff by strangulation and set fire to Neff's townhouse; he was convicted of murder, grand theft, first degree residential burglary, and arson.
Prosecution sought to prove malice and intent to kill; defense claimed heat of passion or unreasonable self-defense.
Police investigated theft of Neff's gold flute and identified defendant through Craigslist and a flute dealer tip.
Prosecutor arranged a courtroom reenactment showing strangulation, using a mannequin; defense objected but the court admitted it.
Defense argued the reenactment was inflammatory, prejudicial, and had little probative value beyond defendant’s testimony.
Trial court admitted the demonstration; jury heard the reenactment and the court ultimately affirmed the conviction on appeal as harmless error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the courtroom reenactment violated Evidence Code 352	People contends the demonstration was probative of intent to kill.	Dondero contends the demonstration was inflammatory and prejudicial with little probative value.	Demonstration abused discretion; probative value outweighed by prejudice.
Whether the error was prejudicial to the verdict	People argues overwhelming evidence supports guilt despite the reenactment.	Dondero argues the reenactment could have affected the jury's assessment of malice and heat of passion.	Error not prejudicial; judgment affirmed due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.

People v. Foster, 50 Cal.4th 1301 (Cal. 2010) (prejudice vs. probative value under 352 standard)
People v. Rodrigues, 8 Cal.4th 1060 (Cal. 1994) (probative value of reenactment depends on similarity)
People v. Turner, 8 Cal.4th 137 (Cal. 1994) (conditions of demonstration must be substantially similar)
People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal.4th 312 (Cal. 1997) (demonstrative evidence must aid jury understanding and be accurate)
People v. Evers, 10 Cal.App.4th 588 (Cal. 1992) (demonstrative evidence can be cumulative and still admissible)