Cal. Codes » Evidence Code / DIVISION 6. WITNESSES / CHAPTER 5. Method and Scope of Examination / ARTICLE 2. Examination of Witnesses
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 770 (2026)

Examination of Witnesses

✓ 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

Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless:

(a)The witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement; or

(b)The witness has not been excused from giving further testimony in the action.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 133 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: People v. Coffman, 96 P.3d 30 (Cal. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Coffman, 96 P.3d 30 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 3× “Marlow contends the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to impeach Koppers with her former testimony, because the court’s finding of willful evasiveness was not supported by substantial evidence.”
People v. Bryant, Smith & Wheeler, 334 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “‖ Evidence Code section 770 requires that before an inconsistent statement is admitted, the witness must be given ―an opportunity to explain or deny the statement,‖ or must be subject to being recalled as a witness.”
People v. Alexander, 235 P.3d 873 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 770, subd. (a) [“Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, *909 extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless: [‘IQ (a) The witness was so examined while…”
People v. Gray, 118 P.3d 496 (Cal. 2005). · cites it 2× “(Evid.Code, § 770.) To the extent defendant is arguing counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's repetition of his questioning technique, no prejudice resulted from this line of questioning.”
People v. Homick, 289 P.3d 791 (Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Evidence Code section 770 provides: “Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless: [¶] (a) The witness was so examined while…”
People v. Chism, 324 P.3d 183 (Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Evidence Code section 770 provides: “Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless: [¶] (a) The witness was so examined while…”
People v. Blacksher, 259 P.3d 370 (Cal. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Evidence Code section 770 states, in relevant part: “Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless: [$].”
People v. Dalton, 441 P.3d 283 (Cal. 2019). “After her trial testimony, the prosecutor sought to play for the jury much of Baker's 1992 statement as either prior consistent statements ( Evidence Code sections 791, 1236 ) or inconsistent statements ( Evidence Code sections 770, 1235 ). Dalton opposed the motion.”
People v. Chhoun, 480 P.3d 550 (Cal. 2021). “Code, § 1235) so long as the witness either had “an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement” while testifying or has not been excused from giving further testimony (Evid. Code, § 770, subd. (a)). These requirements were satisfied.”
People v. Johnson, 842 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1992). · cites it 2× “[7] Evidence Code section 1235 provides as follows: "Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770.”
People v. Holmes, McClain & Newborn, 503 P.3d 668 (Cal. 2022). “) Evidence Code section 770, subdivision (a) in turn, requires that the witness have “an opportunity to explain or to deny the [inconsistent] statement” while testifying.”
People v. Lucky, 753 P.2d 1052 (Cal. 1988). · cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, §§ 770, 1235.) Thus, Ms. Hudson's extrajudicial statement, though inconsistent with her trial testimony, is competent corroborative evidence of Longworth's extrajudicial accusation.”
Show all 133 citing cases →
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.