P. v. Castillo
Appellant challenges his conviction for driving under the influence of methamphetamine by arguing the trial court should have excluded from evidence his statement to officers about his methamphetamine habit. Appellant contends the statement (1) was unduly prejudicial under the applicable provisions of the Evidence Code and (2) its admission into evidence violated his due process right to a fair trial. Court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement into evidence and that appellant's constitutional right to due process was not violated. Thus, the judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Castillo