(a)In a criminal prosecution where the victim is a minor, a statement made by the victim when under the age of 12 describing any act of child abuse or neglect performed with or on the child by another, or describing any attempted act of child abuse or neglect with or on the child by another, is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if all of the following apply:
(1)The statement is not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule.
(2)The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability.
(3)The child either:
(A)Testifies at the proceedings.
(B)Is unavailable as a witness, in which case the statement may be admitted only if there is evidence of the child abuse or neglect that corroborates the statement made by the child.
(b)A statement may not be admitted under this section unless the proponent of the statement makes known to the adverse party the intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement sufficiently in advance of the proceedings in order to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement.
(c)For purposes of this section, “child abuse” means an act proscribed by Section 273a, 273d, or 288.5 of the Penal Code, or any of the acts described in Section 11165.1 of the Penal Code, and “child neglect” means any of the acts described in Section 11165.2 of the Penal Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
51
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case:
People v. Roberto v., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
People v. Roberto v., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 9× “Evidence Code section 1360. We next consider whether the requirements of Evidence Code section 1360 were met.”
Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Edgar L., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “(Evid. Code, § 1360.) 7 The Washington statute, the California statute, and the American Bar Association Recommendations all have the following requirements in common for admission of out-of-court statements: (1) the court must find that the time, content and circumstances of…”
Goodwin R. Brodit v. Steven J. Cambra, Jr., Warden, 350 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2003).
“California Evidence Code § 1360 creates an additional hearsay exception for “a statement made by the victim when under the age of 12 describing any act of child abuse or neglect performed with or on the child by another” if several conditions are met.”
People v. Powell, 194 Cal. App. 4th 1268 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“Defendant asserts that the victim’s characterizations of the movies as “bad,” “nasty,” and “pornography,” in her own words or through the testimony of witnesses permissibly (Evid. Code, § 1360) relating her statements, are too amorphous to satisfy the requirements of section…”
People v. Christensen, 229 Cal. App. 4th 781 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“” 3 Evidence Code section 1360 makes admissible “a statement made by the victim when under the age of 12 describing any act of child abuse .”
Adoption of Daisy, 948 N.E.2d 1239 (Mass. 2011).
“, Cal. Evid. Code § 1360 (West Supp. 2011) (“statement made by the victim when under the age of 12”); Del.”
People v. Eccleston, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4239 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“Evidence Code section 1360 establishes a procedure whereby evidence of a statement made by a victim under the age of 12 that would otherwise be treated as hearsay may be admitted in criminal prosecutions for specified sex offenses if (among other requirements) the trial court…”
Schmidt v. State, 401 P.3d 868 (Wyo. 2017).
“Code § 1228 (West 2017) Admissibility of certain out-of-court statements of minors under the age of 12; establishing elements of certain sexually oriented crimes; notice to defendant; Cal. Evid. Code § 1360 (West 2017) Statements describing an act or attempted act of child abuse…”
People v. Daniel W., 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” (Evid. Code, § 1360, subd. (a)(2).) If the child does not testify, the court must also find the child is unavailable as a witness.”
In Re S.C. Ca3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 7× “, she did not “testify” as required by Evidence Code section 1360. Consequently, it was error to admit her forensic interview and her statements to the therapist.”
People v. Shaw CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “The jury could hear the video evidence and it would be instructed on how to evaluate the testimony of a child witness by considering her cognitive ability and development, and her 4 Evidence Code section 1360, subdivision (a) provides: "In a criminal prosecution where the victim…”
— Cal. Evidence Code § 1360(a) — 1 case
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.