California Codes
Cal. Evidence Code § 1235 (2026)
Prior Statements of Witnesses
✓ 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 made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 257
cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: People v. Bryant, Smith & Wheeler, 334 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2014).
People v. Bryant, Smith & Wheeler, 334 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2014). “) 35 Evidence Code section 1235 provides: ―Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770.”
People v. Homick, 289 P.3d 791 (Cal. 2012). “(Evid. Code, § 1235.) Dominguez was impeached by the prosecutor, as well as by counsel for Robert Homick and for defendant, with statements he had made in earlier court proceedings and to police.”
People v. McKinnon, 259 P.3d 1186 (Cal. 2011). “" Defendant does not dispute that Hawkins's prior statement was admissible, under the prior inconsistent statement exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1235), as proof of what Hawkins observed about Lee's demeanor and emotional state.”
People v. Holmes, McClain & Newborn, 503 P.3d 668 (Cal. 2022). “4th 1067, 1144 [“Prior inconsistent statements are admissible under [Evidence Code section 1235] to prove their substance as well as to impeach the declarant]; see Simons, Cal.”
People v. Anderson, 420 P.3d 825 (Cal. 2018). “( Evid. Code, § 1235 ; People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.”
People v. Zapien, 846 P.2d 704 (Cal. 1993). “(2) Evidence Code section 1235 authorizes the admission into evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement.”
People v. Guerra, 129 P.3d 321 (Cal. 2006). “In addition, the court ruled the testimony was inadmissible under Evidence Code section 352 on the grounds it would mislead the jury and necessitate undue consumption of time. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding the proffered testimony on the…”
People v. Cowan, 236 P.3d 1074 (Cal. 2010). “The trial court held a lengthy hearing and concluded the statement was admissible in part as a prior inconsistent statement (Evid. Code, § 1235), in part as a prior consistent statement (id.”
People v. Johnson, 432 P.3d 536 (Cal. 2018). “They didn't have to kill him," and then revised it, over defendant's hearsay objection, as "C.”
People v. Williams, 940 P.2d 710 (Cal. 1997). “” (Evid. Code, § 1235.) Williams’s statements to Simmons regarding the shooting of Patricia Lewis’s house were inconsistent with Williams’s subsequent testimony at defendant’s trial.”
People v. Hawthorne, 841 P.2d 118 (Cal. 1992). “On cross-examination of Shedrick Evans, the defense inquired regarding statements made by the police in presenting the photographic lineup from which Evans identified defendant as the assailant, in an attempt to demonstrate that overly suggestive procedures had tainted Evans’s…”
People v. Chhoun, 480 P.3d 550 (Cal. 2021). “A statement inconsistent with a witness’s trial testimony “is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule” (Evid. Code, § 1235) so long as the witness either had “an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement” while testifying or has not been excused from giving further…”
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.