Cal. Codes » Evidence Code / DIVISION 10. HEARSAY EVIDENCE / CHAPTER 2. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule / ARTICLE 5. Statements of Mental or Physical State
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 1250 (2026)

Statements of Mental or Physical State

✓ 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

(a)Subject to Section 1252, evidence of a statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health) is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when:

(1)The evidence is offered to prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when it is itself an issue in the action; or

(2)The evidence is offered to prove or explain acts or conduct of the declarant.

(b)This section does not make admissible evidence of a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 250 cases (62 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: People v. Riccardi, 281 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Riccardi, 281 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2012). · cites it 14× “As we 26 Evidence Code section 1250 permits admission of ―evidence of a statement of the declarant‘s then existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health) .”
People v. Guerra, 129 P.3d 321 (Cal. 2006). · cites it 8× “(Evid.Code, § 1250.) The trial court admonished the jury that Powell's statements could not be considered to prove defendant was in fact in Powell's house as she slept, but were admitted only *161 for the purpose of explaining her subsequent actions, if relevant.”
People v. Bryant, Smith & Wheeler, 334 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 6× “Code, § 1230), statements of an existing mental state (Evid. Code, § 1250, subd. (a)(1)), and statements of present intent 57 to do a future act (Evid.”
People v. McKinnon, 259 P.3d 1186 (Cal. 2011). · cites it 6× “Defendant asserts that the statements in the first two paragraphs were independently admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule as substantive proof that Buchanan intended to, and did, pressure Gamble to recant her statement to police and testify the gun…”
People v. Cox, 70 P.3d 277 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 6× “(a)), [5] he wanted to present evidence that on August 12, 1984, Darlene told Officer Dannaker she was afraid that defendant would hurt her if he knew she talked to the police, as well as testimony from Barbara Rugg that on August 12, 1984, Darlene told her "a couple of times"…”
People v. Clark, 372 P.3d 811 (Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “, Evid. Code, § 1250].) First, to the extent that defense counsel sought a ruling from the trial court to generally preclude the prosecution from impeaching Ervin’s statement, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and the denial of such a broad requested…”
People v. Edwards, 819 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1991). · cites it 6× “" (20) Evidence Code section 1250 also does not aid defendant.”
People v. Crew, 74 P.3d 820 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 4× “*752 Evidence Code section 1250 states an exception to the hearsay rule for statements of a declarant's then existing state of mind.”
People v. Brooks, 396 P.3d 480 (Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 1250, subd. (a).) In this regard the court found Kerr's statements were both trustworthy and highly relevant to the issue of whether she was afraid of defendant, an element of the crime of stalking.”
People v. Pearson, 297 P.3d 793 (Cal. 2013). · cites it 3× “(Evid. Code, § 1250.) 6 Counsel did not identify specific portions of the videotape that he wanted to admit.”
People v. Edwards, 306 P.3d 1049 (Cal. 2013). · cites it 3× “Defense counsel asserted it was not hearsay, but circumstantial evidence of an alcoholic blackout‖ and cited Evidence Code section 1250. The prosecutor responded that there was no ―foundation that ties into any kind of blackout,‖ and the trial court sustained the objection.”
People v. Blacksher, 259 P.3d 370 (Cal. 2011). · cites it 3× “(Evid. Code, § 1250.) The actions Ruth observed that day were entirely consistent with that mindset.”
Show all 250 citing cases →
Cal. Evidence Code § 1250(a)(2): 1 case
Harris v. Garcia, 734 F. Supp. 2d 973 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
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.