The court properly exercised its discretion by prohibiting defendant from establishing that the arresting officer found a crack pipe on the individual arrested with defendant. This evidence was irrelevant. Even if it were marginally relevant to defendant's claim that he was using but not selling drugs, any minimal probative value was outweighed by its potential to confuse the jurors (see, People v Harrell,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.