Cal. Codes » Evidence Code / DIVISION 10. HEARSAY EVIDENCE / CHAPTER 1. General Provisions
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 1202 (2026)

General Provisions — Hearsay Evidence

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inconsistent statement or other conduct. Any other evidence offered to attack or support the credibility of the declarant is admissible if it would have been admissible had the declarant been a witness at the hearing. For the purposes of this section, the deponent of a deposition taken in the action in which it is offered shall be deemed to be a hearsay declarant.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: State of Iowa v. Vernon Lee Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Iowa v. Vernon Lee Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 2× “; see also Cal. Evid. Code § 1202 (West, Westlaw current with urgency legislation through Ch.”
People v. Tully, 282 P.3d 173 (Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “” (Evid. Code, § 1202.) Here, the prosecution argued that its evidence proved that defendant alone had murdered Sandy Olsson.”
People v. Brooks, 396 P.3d 480 (Cal. 2017). “" In relevant part, Evidence Code section 1202 provides that "[e]vidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the…”
People v. Blacksher, 259 P.3d 370 (Cal. 2011). “) 22 Evidence Code section 1202 states, in relevant part: “Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of…”
People v. Anderson, 208 Cal. App. 4th 851 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Evidence Code section 1202. Evidence Code section 1202 states, “Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant *885 received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the…”
People v. Hopson, 396 P.3d 1054 (Cal. 2017). “But the prosecution did not object at trial that defendant had crossed a line with her testimony, and the apparent assumption at trial was that the statements had been admitted for a limited nonhearsay purpose.”
People v. Curl, 207 P.3d 2 (Cal. 2009). “Nonetheless, the Attorney General contends the statement was admissible under Evidence Code section 1202 and, in any event, any error was harmless.”
People v. Osorio, 165 Cal. App. 4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Osorio presents four arguments to support his claim the trial court erred: (1) Because admission of Easley’s previous statements violated his confrontation rights, admission of evidence impeaching those statements also violated the confrontation clause; (2) Evidence Code…”
People v. Ramos, 938 P.2d 950 (Cal. 1997). “) Evidence Code section 1202 limited impeachment of a hearsay declarant to that which “would have been admissible had the declarant been a witness at the hearing.”
People v. Kopatz, 347 P.3d 952 (Cal. 2015). “*85 Evidence Code section 1202 provides, in relevant part: “Any .”
People v. Stevenson, 79 Cal. App. 3d 976 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, §§ 1202 and 788.) Defense counsel produced a record of a felony conviction in 1958 in Los Angeles County for grand theft of a person named "Samuel Willet" with the same birth date as Willis.”
People v. Little, 206 Cal. App. 4th 1364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “) Should he have been allowed to avoid a challenge to his credibility, and undercut the operation of section 788, by the simple device of putting on exculpatory hearsay evidence without taking the witness stand? Evidence Code section 1202, upon which the Jacobs court also…”
Show all 56 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.