Possibly, if the evidence connects the other person to the charged crime through direct or circumstantial proof and could raise a reasonable doubt. A theory based only on another person’s motive or opportunity is not enough. The court still applies ordinary relevance and evidence-balancing rules, so counsel needs a concrete offer of proof rather than suspicion or rumor. (People v. Hall; Evidence Code § 350; Evidence Code § 352)
Show the link to the charged act
In People v. Hall, the California Supreme Court rejected a heightened test requiring the defense to show that the alternative suspect probably committed the crime. The evidence need only be capable of raising a reasonable doubt, but it must directly or circumstantially link that person to the perpetration. Evidence that someone else had a motive or opportunity, without that connection, is insufficient. (People v. Hall)
A useful first step is to identify the specific evidence and what it tends to show: for example, a physical trace, reliable witness account, distinctive knowledge, or record that places the person in a way connected to the charged act. Then ask what authenticates the item or supports the witness’s account. Hearsay, speculation, and a bare accusation may present separate admissibility problems. The judge decides what evidence the jury may hear; the jury weighs admitted evidence.
The court applies ordinary Evidence Code limits
Evidence Code section 350 requires evidence to be relevant. Section 352 permits the court to exclude it only when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that admission will require undue consumption of time or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. These limits do not create a higher burden to prove the alternative suspect probably guilty, but they do require counsel to explain the evidence’s real connection and address the specific section 352 risks. (Evidence Code § 350; Evidence Code § 352)
Organize the records, witness names, dates, and chain of custody for counsel. The defense should present the evidence through the court process and avoid publicly accusing a named person based on untested information. Admissibility depends on the proposed evidence and record; no particular item guarantees an acquittal.
The Law Offices of David S. Chesley represents people facing California criminal charges. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss the evidence and proposed offer of proof.