WPCV@ S[a Ϩ"{$. Q~@>і sÙ_]ڱ7JinWE 8>InWFF6DџÒv[<ǟ>ޘ* : vw;v=ߢ꥙~73:]R^j%engR< МSe4e)J5X,e` L(pŪ:E¥}>Y]R޳j!}ZzY EJzECA9Ys&CWG姈$PFH^<زsl4{\==ZÑ#HOZ*c{Y\))I@iDo gr1-+)G_4iGKҳ8n5u -Qh^ TbVg<x5.k؃Mֲo%BG Jr*‚p@gV4A6LGs>w#U'NK % 0Y N w 4  ! m# 1u: 72 0nc U&>D 0Dw 0 0 0# 0 0 0y 0Dh 1 725 1!g 72 0c 0U 0r 0U 0 0 0 0E 0 0 0: 0 0 0 00 0 0x 0! 0! 05" 0" 0# 0u$ 0% 0% 0a& 0& 0' 0( 0( 0) 0>C* 0* 0y+ 0[, 0=- 0. 0/ 0/ 00 02o1 01 0:2 0Y2 0_03 0 3 04 06 B*!8 D/K8 D+z8 08 D/: 0: 06; 0; 0:< 0^ = 0<~= 1e=U6>U*U> >U0> >b> 1> 72Z? ?? 0N? ? ? ? ?@ @@@  @"@*@2@:@B@B@B@B@B@B@B@^ J@HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,uZm,:i+003|xU3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  \  `&Times New Roman(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  xFGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List?Legal 3Legal (1 1.1 1.1.1 etc.) with tabs11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1(;+$2#  0  .3    *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?X%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dK)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?X%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X75+ ` hp x 5  K)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  %&'()*+, 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`ArialSDU_46* `CG TimesSDU_27- -9;GMSY_ekqRomanRomanI.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.]I.11(O$23452345toptoptoptoptoptopE0 !ȻXXUSUS.,  _   Ȼ\8Ȼdd8% j ELUSIVEEXCEPTIONSTOWAIVER&FORFEITUREBARS#Ȼk#    _    J.BradleyOConnell&PaulaRudman $ _FDAP_ԀStaffAttorneys " January2004    CONTENTS   Lg ](93   " 3"   32  I  .3  0    XTXȻ4` aO  5  WELLESTABLISHEDCATEGORIESOFERRORSCOGNIZABLEWITHOUTA j  SPECIFICOBJECTIONORREQUESTBELOW.6aO  7  3݌f (#(# Ќ  " 3"   32  II  .3  0    4f aO  5  GENERALRULE:MOSTERRORSREQUIREANOBJECTIONINTRIALCOURT   INORDERTORAISECLAIMONAPPEAL.6qaO  7  3݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   32  III  .3  0    4g aO  5  OVERCOMINGWAIVERCLAIMS!ADEQUACYOFOBJECTIONBELOWTO L  PRESERVEISSUE.6WaOk  7 ~  3݌.~(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32  IV  .3  0    4h aO  5  OVERCOMINGWAIVERCLAIMS!MISCELLANEOUSGROUNDSFORURGING ` COURTTOEXCUSEOROVERLOOKLACKOFOBJECTION.6& aO:   7 h  3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3 2  V  .3  0    4i aO  5  STRATEGICREASONSFORINVOKINGTHESEWAIVERAVOIDANCE  GROUNDS,DESPITETHEIRINFREQUENTAPPLICATION.6 aO)   7 PW  3 ݌F(#(# Ќ  L: #ȻXXTp#  % _ I.0  WELLESTABLISHEDCATEGORIESOFERRORSCOGNIZABLE (x WITHOUTASPECIFICOBJECTIONORREQUESTBELOW. &v(#(#   (Fy9]" 3"   3 2F3  0    Sufficiencyofevidence 3 )݌$ t(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Whereadefendantgoestotrial(jurytrial,benchtrial,slowplea/submission), $!t sufficiencyofevidenceclaimmayberaisedonappeal,regardlessofwhether $"t defendantmovedforacquittal(Pen.Code1118,1118.1)orotherwiseraised $#t sufficiencyclaimbelow: E.g.,Peoplev._Cuccia_(2002)97_Cal.App_.4th785, $$t 795.;݌(%x ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;x0  2F3  0` (#(#  Notethatthisappliesequallytosufficiencyofevidencetosupporta strike (&x! orotherpriorconvictionenhancement.Peoplev.Rodriguez(1998)17Cal.4th ('x"  253,262.Contrarytopracticeofsomeappellateattorneys,itisnotnecessary ((x#! topresentsuchclaimsinanIACenvelope.;x݌()x$"` (#` (# Ќ   (+x&$ " 3"   32F3  0    Juryinstructions(instructionsgiven&_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁinstructions) 3݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  Juryinstructionsgiven:Pen.Code1259[anyinstructiongiven_reviewable_  onappealifitaffecteddefendants substantialrights]. Ascertaining  whetherclaimedinstructionalerroraffectedthesubstantialrightsofthe  defendantnecessarilyrequiresanexaminationofthemeritsoftheclaim"at  leasttotheextentofascertainingwhethertheassertederrorwouldresultin   prejudiceiferroritwas.Peoplev.Andersen(1994)26_Cal.App_.4th1241,   1249,emphasisadded..;"݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  _Sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutytoinstructonmattersopenlyandcloselyconnectedwiththe   case,includingelementsofthecharge,elementsoftheoriesofliability,and   lesserincludedoffensesanddefensesifsubstantialevidencewouldsupport   verdictonthosetheories.E.g.,Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470,   [elements];Peoplev._Breverman_(1998)19Cal.4th142,154162[lesser   includedoffenses];Peoplev._Prettyman_(1996)14Cal.4th248[ target   offenseforany naturalandprobableconsequencestheoryofliability].;݌` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;{0  2F3  0` (#(#  Evenifasubjectdoesnotcomewithinacourts_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁinstructional  obligations, ifacourtdoesundertaketoinstructonaparticularpoint,it  mustdosocorrectly. Defendantmaychallengeincorrectormisleading  instructions,regardlessofwhetherthoseinstructionsotherwisewouldhave  comewithin_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁduties.Peoplev.Castillo(1997)16Cal.4th1009,  1015;Peoplev._Prettyman_(1996)14Cal.4th248,270. Evenifthecourthas  no_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁdutytoinstructonaparticularlegalpoint,whenitdoeschoose  toinstruct,itmustdosocorrectly.Castillo,supra,16ZȻCal.4th#ȻZ #Ԁatp.1015.;{݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3!2F3  0    Excessofjurisdiction 3!!݌ (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;g"0  2F3  0` (#(#  Unauthorizedsentence,Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,354[ ȻȻlegalerror   resultinginanunauthorizedsentencecommonlyoccurswherethecourt   violatesmandatoryprovisionsgoverningthelengthofconfinement(e.g.,#ȻȻ@##ȻȻ   654,rulesgoverningstayingorpartialstayingoftermsorenhancements,etc.)].#ȻȻM$#;g""݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;8%0  2F3  0` (#(#  Statuteoflimitations.Peoplev.Williams(1999)21Cal.4th335,339340.;8%e%݌! ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;X&0  2F3  0` (#(#  Competencytostandtrial/Pen.Code1368.Peoplev.Castro(2000)78 "  _Cal.App_.4th1402,1415;ȻȻPeoplev.SuperiorCourt#ȻȻ'#% [ %['ȻȻ(Marks)#ȻȻ'#ȻȻԀ(1991)1Cal.4th #  56,#ȻȻI(#ȻȻ7071;#ȻȻ(#ȻȻPeoplev.Hale#ȻȻ)#ȻȻԀ(1988)44Cal.3d531,541#ȻȻT)#.;X&&݌$ ` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;)0  2F3  0` (#(#  impositionofenhancementnotpleaded.ȻȻPeoplev._Mancebo_Ԁ(2002)27Cal.4th % !! 735,749fn.7.;)!*݌& ""` (#` (# Ќ  #ȻȻ*#4lanaO  5  Backtotop6+aO+nduc  7is+ (#$  % b II.0  GENERALRULE:MOSTERRORSREQUIREANOBJECTIONINTRIAL *%& COURTINORDERTORAISECLAIMONAPPEAL. +&'(#(# Ї" 3"   3 -2F3  0    Generalprinciple: ȻȻTheforfeituredoctrineisawellestablishedproceduralprinciple  that,withcertainexceptions,anappellatecourtwillnotconsiderclaimsoferrorthat  couldhavebeenbutwerenotraisedinthetrialcourt.[Citations.]#ȻȻ-#ȻȻStrongpolicy  reasonssupportthisrule:Itisbothunfairandinefficienttopermitaclaimoferror  onappealthat,iftimelybroughttotheattentionofthetrialcourt,couldhavebeen  easilycorrectedoravoided.[Citations.]Peoplev._Stowell_(2003)#ȻȻ/#ȻȻԀ31Cal.4th1107,   1114. 3 -M-݌ (#(# Ќ  #ȻȻ0#" 3"  ȻȻ 3a12F3  0    #ȻȻ1#Mostcommoncategoriespresentingwaiverproblems: 3a11݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   322F3  0    Errorsinadmissionorexclusionofevidence(_Evid_.Code353,354). 322݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   332F3  0    Sentencingerrorrelatedtoadequacyofcourtsreasons(orfailuretostatereasons)for   asentencechoice.Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331[reasonsforuppertermor   consecutivesentences];Peoplev._Stowell_(2003)31Cal.4th1107[failuretomake  expressfindingsforHIVtestingofsexoffender]. 333݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;60  2F3  0` (#(#  Failuretoprovidea tentativedecisionbeforepronouncingsentencedoesnot  excuseScottdutytoobjecttoanydefectsinsentencingreasons.Peoplev.  Gonzalez(2003)31Cal.4th745.;6H6݌` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;70  2F3  0` (#(#  SeealsoPeoplev.Welch(1993)5Cal.4th228[necessityofobjectionto  preservechallengetoprobationconditions].;78݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3492F3  0    Prosecutorialmisconduct.Peoplev.Green(1980)27Cal.3d1,27;e.g.,Peoplev.  Brown(2003)31Cal.4th518,553554;Peoplev._Sapp_(2003)31Cal.4th240,279. 349a9݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3:2F3  0    Pinpointinstructions(i.e.,failuretogiveinstructionsdeemedoutsideacourts_sua_  _sponte_Ԁinstructionalduties).E.g.,Peoplev._Saille_(1991)54Cal.3d1103,1120;  Peoplev._Middleton_(1997)52_Cal.App_.4th19.Suchinstructionsrelatingcategories  ofevidence(e.g.,eyewitnesstestimony,intoxication)toelementsofoffenseor   defensetheoryor clarifyingoramplifyingapointcoveredbycorrectgeneral ! instructionsmustberequested.Peoplev._Guiuan_(1998)18Cal.4th558,570. 3:;݌"(#(# Ќ  " 3 "   3>2F3  0    Mosterrorsduringjuryselection. 3>>݌$ (#(# Ќ  " 3 "   3?2F3  0    Mostother courtroomerrors.󀀀E.g.,shackling,misconductofcourtpersonnelor &"" spectators,etc. 3??݌'##(#(# Ќ  4kanaO  5  Backtotop6@aO@nduc  7is!A )%%  % c III.0  OVERCOMINGWAIVERCLAIMS!ADEQUACYOFOBJECTIONBELOW +'' TOPRESERVEISSUE. (#(# " 3 "   3NB2F3  0    Timing/in_limine_Ԁmotion.Wheredefendantraisesevidentiaryissueinanin_limine_  motionandcourtrulesonit,defendantgenerallydoesnotneedtorenewthat  objectionduringtrialtopreserveissue.Peoplev.Morris(1991)53Cal.3d152,189;  accordPeoplev._Crittenden_(1994)9Cal.4th83,127;Peoplev.Rowland(1992)4   Cal.4th238,264fn.3;Peoplev.Felix(1999)70_Cal.App_.4th426,430431. 3NB{B݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3 "   3E2F3  0    Generalprinciplesinassessingsufficiencyofobjection: 3EE݌ (#(# Ќ  "; "  ;F0  2F3  0` (#(#  Anobjectionissufficientifitfairlyapprisesthetrialcourtoftheissueitis    beingcalledupontodecide.[Citations.]Inacriminalcase,theobjectionwill   bedeemedpreservedif,despiteinadequatephrasing,therecordshowsthatthe   courtunderstoodtheissuepresented..[Citations.](Peoplev.Scott(1978)21   Cal.3d284,290[objectionstorelevance,intrusiveness,and demeaning   natureofmedicaltestondefendantsoughtbyprosecutiondeemedsufficient   topreservesearchandseizure,selfincrimination,andprivacyclaims].;FF݌` (#` (# Ќ    (Fyy  ";"  ;{J0  2F3  0` (#(#  ݀ ȻȻWhilenoparticularformofobjectionisrequired[citation]#ȻȻK#ȻȻ,theobjection  mustbemadeinsuchawayastoalertthetrialcourttothenatureofthe  anticipatedevidenceandthebasison% Y #ȻȻK#%YNLȻȻwhichexclusionissought,andtoafford  thePeopleanopportunitytoestablishitsadmissibility.[Citations.]#ȻȻL#ȻȻ[]....#ȻȻWM#ȻȻԀThe  circumstancesinwhichanobjectionismadeshouldbeconsideredin  determiningitssufficiency.#ȻȻM#[Citations.] ȻȻ Peoplev.Williams(1988)44Cal.3d  883,906907 #ȻȻN#Ԁ[whereprosecutorsstatementshadalreadyinformedcourtof  natureof othercrimesevidence,defensecounsels relevanceobjection  deemedsufficienttoputcourtonnoticetodetermineadmissibilityunder_Evid_.  Code1101&352standardsforotheroffenses];seealsoPeoplev.Clark  (1992)3Cal.4th41,123124[undertotalityofcircumstances,counsels  relevanceand_Evid_.Code352objectionsdeemedsufficienttoraise_Evid_.  Code1101objection].;{JJ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   30R2F3  0    New!: Objectiononparallelstatelawground.Objectiononstatelawgrounds " sufficienttopreserveparallelfederalconstitutionalclaimgovernedbysimilar # standard. 30R]R݌$ (#(# Ќ  " 3"     3S2F3  0 `   [_N]o_Ԁusefulpurposeisservedbydecliningtoconsideronappealaclaimthat % ! merelyrestates,underalternativelegalprinciples,aclaimotherwiseidentical &!" toonethatwasproperlypreservedbyatimelymotionthatcalleduponthetrial '"# courttoconsiderthesamefactsandtoapplyalegalstandardsimilartothat (#$ whichwouldalsodeterminetheclaimraisedonappeal.Peoplev.Yeoman )$% (2003)31Cal.4th93,117118[Wheelermotionsufficienttopreserve_Batson_ *%& claimaswell]. 3ST݌+&'` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;AW0  2F3  0` (#(#  Thisveryrecentdecisioncallsintoquestionthenumerouscasesoverthepast  decade(manyofthemcapitalappeals)inwhichCaliforniareviewingcourts  haverefusedtoconsiderthefederalconstitutionalimplicationsofevidentiary  errorsandotherstatelawviolationsbecausedefensetrialcounselfailedto   federalizetheobjection(e.g.,deeminga hearsayobjectioninsufficientto  preserveaconfrontationclauseclaim).;AWnW݌ ` (#` (# Ќ     `     h      p 4manaO  5  Backtotop6ZaOZnduc  7isZ    % d IV.0  OVERCOMINGWAIVERCLAIMS!MISCELLANEOUSGROUNDSFOR   URGINGCOURTTOEXCUSEOROVERLOOKLACKOFOBJECTION. (#(#  " 3"   3\2F3  0    Generalthoughts:Thevariousgroundslistedbelowarethe elusivewaiverbusters   ofthetitleofthesematerials.Thesegroundsaremuchlesscommonlyinvokedthan   thevariousrulesnotedintheprecedingsections.But,asreflectedinthehandfulof   recentcitations,thesegroundshavenotentirelydisappearedfromthecaselaw.  However,thepublishedcaselawshowslittleconsistencyinappellatecourts  willingnesstooverlookapparentdefectsinobjectionsonthesegrounds.Whena  courtisinterestedingettingtothemeritsofanissue,itwillfrequentlyinvokeseveral  oftheseoverlappinggrounds(e.g., purequestionoflaw, constitutionalissue,and  appellatecourtsdiscretion). 3\B\݌(#(# Ќ    (Fyy " 3"   3`2F3  0     Fundamentalconstitutionalrights.Lackofobjectiondoesnotforfeitrighttoappeal  deprivationof certainfundamentalconstitutionalrights,suchasrighttojurytrial  anddoublejeopardy(eventhoughitmaybarrighttoraiserelatedclaimsofviolations  ofstatestatutoryorotherproceduralrules): ȻȻAdefendantisnotprecludedfrom  raisingforthefirsttimeonappealaclaimassertingthedeprivationofcertain  fundamental,constitutionalrights.[Citations.]#ȻȻb#ȻȻPeoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,  276277;#ȻȻc#Ԁaccord,Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,592,589fn.5;People   v._Valladoli_(1996)13Cal.4th590,606. 3`a݌!(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3ne2F3  0     Constitutionalissues.Appellatecourtsauthoritytoreview constitutionalclaims # notraisedbelow,includingconstitutionalityofstatute.Halev.Morgan(1978)22 $  Cal.3d388,394;Peoplev.Brown(1996)42_Cal.App_.4th461,471;Peoplev. % ! Marchand(2002)98_Cal.App_.4th1056,1061. 3nee݌&!"(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3g2F3  0    Purequestionoflawcognizableonappealdespiteinadequateobjection.Yeoman(the (#$ recentSupremeCourtcasedeemingastate Wheelermotionsufficienttopreserve )$% federal_Batson_claim)noted thewellestablishedprinciplethatareviewingcourt *%& mayconsideraclaimraisingapurequestionoflawonundisputedfacts.[Citations.] +&' Peoplev.Yeoman(2003)31Cal.4th93,118;seealso,e.g.,Peoplev.Gutierrez(2003)  112_Cal.App_.4th1463,1471fn.5;Peoplev.Murphy(2003)112_Cal.App_.4th546,  564. 3gh݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3k2F3  0    Appellatecourtsinherentdiscretiontoconsideraclaimnotadequatelypreserved  below(exceptevidentiaryclaims): 3kk݌ (#(# Ќ  ";"  ;l0  2F3  0` (#(#  Surely,thefactthatapartymayforfeitarighttopresentaclaimoferrorto   theappellatecourtifhedidnotdoenoughtoprevent[]orcorrect[]'the   claimederrorinthetrialcourt[citation]doesnotcompeltheconclusionthat,   byoperationofhisdefault,theappellatecourtisdeprivedofauthorityinthe   premises.Anappellatecourtisgenerallynotprohibitedfromreachinga   questionthathasnotbeenpreservedforreviewbyaparty.([Citation];see,   _e.g.,Peoplev.Berryman(1993)6Cal.4th1048,10721076[][passingona   claimofprosecutorialmisconductthatwasnotpreservedforreview];People   v.Ashmus(1991)54Cal.3d932,975976[][same].)Indeed,ithasthe  authoritytodoso.[Citation]....Therefore,itisfreetoactinthematter.  [Citation]Whetherornotitshoulddosoisentrustedtoitsdiscretion.  [Citation]Peoplev.Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148,161fn.6;emphasis  added.;l%m݌` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;r0  2F3  0` (#(#  InWilliams,theSupremeCourtupheldanappellatecourtsdiscretionary  authoritytoreviewthesoundnessofatrialcourtsreasonsfordismissinga   strike,eventhoughtheprosecutorhadfailedtoobjecttothosereasons.But  (asreflectedbyWilliamscitationtocasesreachingprosecutorialmisconduct  claims),theprincipleappliesequallytoreviewofinadequatelypreserved  defenseobjections.See,e.g.,Peoplev.Ellison(2003)111Cal.App.4th1360,  13701371[jurisdictionofjudgetopasssentencewheresentencing  proceedingshadbegunbeforedifferentjudge];Peoplev.Abbaszadeh(2003)  106Cal.App.4th642[judgesvoirdirecommentsinvitingjurorstomakeup  someotherreasonforexcusalratherthanadmittoracialprejudiceagainst   defendant].;rr݌!` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;~w0  2F3  0` (#(#  But,pertheWilliamsfootnote,thereisnosuchdiscretionwithrespectto " evidentiaryclaims,becauseEvid.Code353and354specificallyprohibited # reviewofevidentiaryobjectionsnotraisedbelow.Peoplev.Williams(1998) $  17Cal.4th148,161fn.6.;~ww݌%!!` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;y0  2F3  0` (#(#  Ofallthewaiverexceptionsdiscussedhere,the inherentdiscretionprinciple &"" recognizedintheWilliamsfootnotepotentiallyhasthemostfarreaching '## implications.Therearenoclearlydefinedstandardsgoverninghowandwhen ($$ anappellatecourtshouldexerciseitsdiscretiontooverlookawaiver,andno )%% consistentpatternemergesoutoftherelativelyfewcases(publishedand *&& unpublished)referringtothatdiscretion.Somecases(bothpreandpost +'' Williams)simplynotethe importanceofconstitutionalclaimsand issuesof  publicpolicyasgroundsforexercisingdiscretiontoreachthemerits.Cf.  Halev.Morgan(1978)22Cal.3d388,394;Peoplev.Brown(1996)42  Cal.App.4th461,471;Peoplev.Marchand(2002)98Cal.App.4th1056,1061.;yy݌` (#` (# Ќ  " 3"   3F~2F3  0    Prejudicenotcurablebyadmonition.Prosecutorialorjudicialmisconductis   reviewablewithoutobjectionwheretheprejudiceissogreatthatitcouldnthavebeen   curedbyanadmonition.Peoplev.Green(198027Cal.3d1,27;seee.g.,Peoplev.   Johnson(1981)121Cal.App.3d94,103104[prejudicialprosecutorialmisconduct];   Peoplev.Perkins(2003)109Cal.App.4th1562,1567[prejudicial_judicial   misconduct]. 3F~s~݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3"   3.2F3  0    Futility(e.g.,wherecourthasalreadyoverruledsimilarobjections).E.g.,Peoplev.   Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,820[prosecutorialmisconduct];Peoplev._Abbaszadeh_   (2003)106_Cal.App_.4th642,648649[judicialmisconduct]. 3.[݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3B2F3  0    Closelybalancedcaseandmisconductmaterialtotheverdict.󀀀 .... Misconductof  theprosecutingattorneymaynotbeassignedaserroronappealifithasnotbeen  assignedatthetrialunless,thecasebeingcloselybalancedandpresentinggrave  doubtofthedefendant'sguilt,themisconductcontributedmateriallytotheverdictor  unlesstheharmfulresultsofthemisconductcouldnothavebeenobviatedbyatimely  admonitiontothejury.....[Citation.]Peoplev._Bryden_(1998)63_Cal.App_.4th159,  182,emphasisadded.  3Bo݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32F3  0    Prosecutorsduty.Prosecutorhasequaldutytoensurethatlawisobeyed.Peoplev.  _Abbaszadeh_Ԁ(2003)106_Cal.App_.4th642,649. 3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32F3  0    Lackofopportunitytoobject.E.g.,Inre_Khonsavahn_ԀS.(1998)67_Cal.App_.4th532,  536537[ ȻȻitappearscounselherewasutterlysurprisedbythecourt'sruling[requiring   AIDStesting]andhadlittleopportunitytoreact]. 3݌!(#(# Ќ  #ȻȻ‰#"; "  ȻȻ;0  2F3  0` (#(#  #ȻȻ#ȻȻButcf.#ȻȻ#Peoplev.Gonzalez(2003)31Cal.4th745[failuretogive tentative " sentencingdecisionordinarilydoesntexcuseobjectionrequirement].;-݌#` (#` (# Ќ  " 3 "   32F3  0    Superveningchangeinthelaw.ȻȻ Thoughevidentiarychallengesareusuallywaived %!! unlesstimelyraisedinthetrialcourt,thisisnotsowhenthepertinentlawlater &"" changedsounforeseeablythatitisunreasonabletoexpecttrialcounseltohave '## anticipatedthechange.[Citations.]Peoplev.Turner(1990)50Cal.3d668,703; ($$ #ȻȻ# 3݌ (#(# Ќ  " 3 "   32F3  0    Discretiontoconsidermeritsofconstitutionalissuetoforestallhabeaspetitionon *&& sameissue. ȻȻAmatternormallynot_reviewable_Ԁupondirectappeal,butwhichis +'' shownbytheappealrecordtobevulnerabletohabeascorpusproceedings#ȻȻ{#ȻȻbasedupon  constitutionalgroundsmaybeconsideredupondirectappeal#ȻȻ|#ȻȻ.[Citations.]Peoplev.  Norwood(1972)26_Cal.App_.3d148,1#ȻȻ#ȻȻ53;#ȻȻՒ#Peoplev.ȻȻԀBlanco(1992)10#ȻȻ'#_Cal.App_.4thȻȻ  1167,1173.#ȻȻ# 3݌(#(# Ќ  "; "  ;N0  2F3  0` (#(#  Similarprinciple. Toforestallanylaterchargeofineffectiveassistance,  reviewingcourtmayconsidermeritsofclaimnotpreservedbelow.E.g.,   Peoplev.Cox(1991)53Cal.3d618,682.;N{݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  " 3 "   32F3  0    Finalthought(whennothingelsequitefits):?+ ` hp x X?  Anappellatecourtmaynoteerrors   notraisedbythepartiesifjusticerequiresit. [Citations.]Peoplev.Norwood    (1972)26_Cal.App_.3d148,152. 3@݌ (#(# Ќ     `     h 4nanaO  5  Backtotop6iaO}nduc  7is    % e V.0  STRATEGICREASONSFORINVOKINGTHESEWAIVERAVOIDANCE  GROUNDS,DESPITETHEIRINFREQUENTAPPLICATION. (#(# " 3 "   32F3  0    Towininstatecourt.Ifyouvemanagedtopersuadethejusticesonthesubstantive  issue!i.e.,thattheresbeenaninjusticeinthiscase!givethemawaytoruleinyour  favorontheapparentproceduralbar. 3݌(#(# Ќ  " 3 "   32F3  0    Towininfederalcourtifthestatecourtstillrefusestoconsidertheissue.Some  aspectsofCaliforniaswaiverrulesmaynotstandupas adequateandindependent  stateproceduraldefaultsbecausethestateappellatecourtsapplythewaiverrulesand  theirexceptionsinconsistentlyorarbitrarily.Issuesalongtheselinesarecurrently  pendingbeforeanenbancpaneloftheNinthCircuit._Chein_Ԁv._Shumsky_(9thCir.  2003)323F.3d748,enbancreviewgranted(Aug.23,2003)340F.3d786. 3݌(#(# Ќ  ";"  ;%0  2F3  0` (#(#  The Williamsfootnoterecognizinganappellatecourtsinherentdiscretion  toreachaninadequatelypreservedissue(Peoplev.Williams(1998)17Cal.4th   148,161fn.6,discussedabove)maybeespeciallyvulnerabletosuchan !  adequateandindependentbecausethecaselawdoesnotappeartoidentify " anyclearstandardsforwhenandhowanappellatecourtshouldexercisethat # discretion.;%R݌$ ` (#` (# Ќ     `     h   4oanaO  5  Backtotop6MaOanduc  7is