California Codes
Cal. Evidence Code § 1238 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Evidence of a statement previously made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement would have been admissible if made by him while testifying and:
(a)The statement is an identification of a party or another as a person who participated in a crime or other occurrence;
(b)The statement was made at a time when the crime or other occurrence was fresh in the witness’ memory; and
(c)The evidence of the statement is offered after the witness testifies that he made the identification and that it was a true reflection of his opinion at that time.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: People v. Redd, 229 P.3d 101 (Cal. 2010).
People v. Redd, 229 P.3d 101 (Cal. 2010). “Evidence Code section 1238 establishes an exception to the hearsay rule for a statement that identifies a party or other person as a participant in a crime or other occurrence, “if the statement would have been admissible if made by [the witness] while testifying .”
People v. Rodrigues, 885 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1994). “(Evid. Code, § 1238, subd. (b).) He also asserts that Vargas had not previously testified that she made an identification of Garcia at the preliminary hearing.”
People v. Boyd, 222 Cal. App. 3d 541 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “(Evid. Code, § 1238, subd. (a).) Kurtis Hobel testified that at the time of the lineup, the events of the crime were somewhat fresh in his mind (Evid.”
People v. Garceau, 862 P.2d 664 (Cal. 1993). “) [31] Evidence Code section 1238 provides: "Evidence of a statement previously made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement would have been admissible if made by him while testifying and: "(a) The statement is an identification of a party or…”
People v. Dykes, 209 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2009). “2 Evidence Code, section 1238 provides: “Evidence of a statement previously made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement would have been admissible if made by him while testifying and: HD (a) The statement is an identification of a party or…”
Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006). “" Cal. Evid. Code § 1238 (a) (Deering 2005).”
People v. Ingle, 178 Cal. App. 3d 505 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “(Evid. Code, § 1238; People v. Cook (1967) 252 Cal.”
People v. Brown, 883 P.2d 949 (Cal. 1994). “Code, § 1240] or as evidence of prior identification [Evid. Code, § 1238]), provided the requirements for their admission under that exception are satisfied in the particular case.”
People v. Cooks, 141 Cal. App. 3d 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). “65 Evidence Code section 1238 provides: “Evidence of a statement previously made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement would have been admissible if made by him while testifying and: “(a) The statement is an identification of a party or…”
State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1978). “801(d)(1)(C); Cal.Evid.Code, § 1238 (Deering); N.Y.Crim.”
People v. Neal, 2020 IL App (2d) 170356 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “25 (McKinney 2017) (limiting testimony about prior identifications to identifications made by witnesses who “observed the person claimed *** to be the defendant either at the time and place of the commission of the offense or upon some other occasion relevant to the case”); Cal.…”
People v. Fagalilo, 123 Cal. App. 3d 524 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “Appellant contends this was inadmissible hearsay unless the prior identifications were shown to be admissible as prior inconsistent statements under Evidence Code section 1235, or as prior consistent statements under conditions specified in Evidence Code sections 1236 and 791.”
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.