California Codes
Cal. Evidence Code § 356 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when a letter is read, the answer may be given; and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 161
cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: People v. Brooks, 396 P.3d 480 (Cal. 2017).
People v. Brooks, 396 P.3d 480 (Cal. 2017). “By its terms, Evidence Code section 356 applies "[w]here part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party .”
People v. Clark, 372 P.3d 811 (Cal. 2016). “Analysis Evidence Code section 356 provides: “Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; .”
People v. Johnson, 501 P.3d 651 (Cal. 2022). “” Evidence Code section 356 provides that “[w]here part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when a letter is read, the answer may 79 PEOPLE v.”
People v. Ng, 513 P.3d 858 (Cal. 2022). “In addition to excluding the entire diary under relevance grounds and Evidence Code section 352, the court also sustained the prosecution’s objection to the proffered entries under Evidence Code section 356.”
People v. Riccardi, 281 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2012). “(Evid. Code, § 356.) But it does not appear that the portions of the audio recording relevant to rehabilitate Young created a misleading impression requiring the playing of the entire recording to correct any such misimpression, and the 22 Evidence Code section 356 provides:…”
People v. Harrison, 106 P.3d 895 (Cal. 2005). “"Evidence Code section 356 permits introduction of statements `on the "same subject"' or which are necessary for the understanding of the statements already introduced.”
People v. Chism, 324 P.3d 183 (Cal. 2014). “Discussion Evidence Code section 356 provides, in relevant part, that “[w]here part of [a] .”
People v. Armstrong, 433 P.3d 987 (Cal. 2019). “" ( Evid. Code, § 356.) "The purpose of [ Evidence Code section 356 ] is to prevent the use of selected **1028 aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed.”
People v. Guerra, 129 P.3d 321 (Cal. 2006). “Evidence Code section 356 provides: "Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; when a letter is read, the answer may be given; and when a detached act,…”
People v. Melendez, 384 P.3d 1202 (Cal. 2016). “Evidence Code section 356 provides: "Where part of [a] .”
People v. Vines, 251 P.3d 943 (Cal. 2011). “We may properly look at Proby’s statement as a whole because, as the trial court concluded, the prosecution was entitled under Evidence Code section 356 to introduce the portion of the statement describing defendant’s participation in the offense if the defense introduced the…”
People v. Farley, 210 P.3d 361 (Cal. 2009). “all 150 letters—then at least a representative portion should be shown to the jury.”
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.