(a)The proponent of the proffered evidence has the burden of producing evidence as to the existence of the preliminary fact, and the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the court finds that there is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the existence of the preliminary fact, when:
(1)The relevance of the proffered evidence depends on the existence of the preliminary fact;
(2)The preliminary fact is the personal knowledge of a witness concerning the subject matter of his testimony;
(3)The preliminary fact is the authenticity of a writing; or
(4)The proffered evidence is of a statement or other conduct of a particular person and the preliminary fact is whether that person made the statement or so conducted himself.
(b)Subject to Section 702, the court may admit conditionally the proffered evidence under this section, subject to evidence of the preliminary fact being supplied later in the course of the trial.
(c)If the court admits the proffered evidence under this section, the court:
(1)May, and on request shall, instruct the jury to determine whether the preliminary fact exists and to disregard the proffered evidence unless the jury finds that the preliminary fact does exist.
(2)Shall instruct the jury to disregard the proffered evidence if the court subsequently determines that a jury could not reasonably find that the preliminary fact exists.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
177
cases (
57 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case:
People v. Lewis, 28 P.3d 34 (Cal. 2001).
People v. Lewis, 28 P.3d 34 (Cal. 2001).
· cites it 8× “(Evid. Code, § 403, subds. (a)(2), (c)(1).”
People v. Lucas, 907 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1995).
· cites it 6× “As we have noted, however, the trial court evidently understood the objection as encompassing a relevancy claim, so we will reach the merits. (21) Of course, only relevant evidence is admissible.”
People v. Brooks, 396 P.3d 480 (Cal. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The relevance, and thus the admissibility, of the evidence in question depends on the existence of the preliminary fact that Kerr was the person who mailed a pair of panties to defendant. Defendant, as the proponent of the evidence, bore the burden of producing evidence in…”
People v. Dalton, 441 P.3d 283 (Cal. 2019).
· cites it 2× “) As an initial matter, we conclude that Dalton's statement on its own, " 'Yep, we really fucked that girl up,' " and her accompanying exuberance were admissible as a party statement under Evidence Code section 1220.”
People v. Westerfield, 433 P.3d 914 (Cal. 2019).
· cites it 2× “) In contrast, Evidence Code section 403 is concerned with a trial court's initial determination that sufficient evidence has been produced to show the existence of a preliminary fact necessary to support admission of proffered evidence, and the court's duty to instruct, on…”
People v. Cortez, 369 P.3d 521 (Cal. 2016).
· cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 403, subd. (a)(2).) ―Direct proof of perception, or proof that forecloses all speculation is not required.”
People v. Lucas, 333 P.3d 587 (Cal. 2014).
· cites it 3× “(Evid. Code, § 403, subd. (a)(1); People v.”
People v. Marshall, 919 P.2d 1280 (Cal. 1996).
· cites it 4× “(Evid. Code, § 403.) The trial court ruled there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find the foundational facts and, accordingly, admitted the photographs.”
People v. Clark, 372 P.3d 811 (Cal. 2016).
“47 The evidence linking defendant to the letter to Moore was through Birney, a third party, and depended on the preliminary fact that defendant authorized Birney to write the letter.”
People v. Bryant, Smith & Wheeler, 334 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2014).
· cites it 2× “A trial court is not required in all cases to conduct a ― ‗preliminary inquiry‘ ‖ regarding the sufficiency of proffered other crimes 4 Evidence Code section 402, subdivision (b), provides in relevant part that ―[t]he court may hear and determine the question of the…”
People v. Guerra, 129 P.3d 321 (Cal. 2006).
· cites it 2× “On appeal, defendant renews his challenge to the hamper's admissibility, When, as here, the relevance of evidence depends on the existence of a preliminary fact, the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the trial court finds there is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding…”
People v. Melendez, 384 P.3d 1202 (Cal. 2016).
· cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 403, subd. (a)(1) ; People v.”
Cal. Evidence Code § 403(a)(3): 1 case
Cal. Evidence Code § 403(c)(1): 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.