No other evidence shall be required to prove marriage or registered domestic partnership of spouses, or that a person is the lawful father or mother of a child or children, than is or shall be required to prove such facts in a civil action. In all prosecutions under either Section 270a or 270 of this code, Sections 970, 971, and 980 of the Evidence Code do not apply, and both spouses or domestic partners shall be competent to testify to any and all relevant matters, including the fact of marriage or registered domestic partnership and the parentage of a child or children. Proof of the abandonment and nonsupport of a spouse, or of the omission to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or of medical attendance for a child or children is prima facie evidence that such
abandonment and nonsupport or omission to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance is willful. In any prosecution under Section 270, it shall be competent for the people to prove nonaccess of husband to wife or any other fact establishing nonpaternity of a husband. In any prosecution pursuant to Section 270, the final establishment of paternity or nonpaternity in another proceeding shall be admissible as evidence of paternity or nonpaternity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1951–1999 · leading case:
Salas v. Cortez, 593 P.2d 226 (Cal. 1979).
Salas v. Cortez, 593 P.2d 226 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 4× “(Pen. Code, § 270e.) [5] Although in the past a paternity suit was a private affair between a mother and the man she named as the father of her child, in recent years the state has assumed a greater role in bringing suits to determine parentage.”
Cnty. of El Dorado v. Schneider, 191 Cal. App. 3d 1263 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
“(Pen. Code, § 270e.) But that downstream consequence is not sufficient to convert this action into a criminal action.”
Cnty. of Ventura v. Castro, 93 Cal. App. 3d 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
“2d 226 ]; Pen. Code, § 270e.) Both the California Legislature and the California courts have in recent years severely limited the use of confessions of judgment or cognitive provisions.”
People v. Hewlett, 239 P.2d 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951).
“) Penal Code, section 270e, provides that proof of nonsupport of a wife or children shall constitute prima facie (or presumptive) evidence that the abandonment was wilful.”
Cnty. of Kern v. Dillier, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1412 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
“We see no reason to treat appeals from state-initiated paternity determinations any differently.”
Cnty. of Sutter v. Davis, 234 Cal. App. 3d 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “] While an indigent is entitled to counsel if prosecuted criminally for nonsupport, the most significant element of the offense— paternity—may have already been determined in a civil proceeding in which the defendant was unrepresented by counsel.”
People v. Katz, 47 Cal. App. 3d 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).
“For example, Penal Code section 250 (presumption *302 of malice), Penal Code section 270e (presumption of willfulness of abandonment), Penal Code section 476a, subdivision (c) (presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds), Penal Code section 484, subdivision (b)…”
People v. Cloward, 196 Cal. App. 2d 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961).
“) “Penal Code, section 270e, provides that proof of nonsupport of a wife or children shall constitute prima facie (or presumptive) evidence that the abandonment was wilful.”
Smith v. Superior Court, 110 Cal. App. 3d 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
“[would be] admissible as evidence of paternity” (Pen. Code, § 270e). 3 It is on this basis that petitioner claims the compelled disclosure could serve as a ‘“link in a chain’ of evidence tending to establish guilt of a criminal offense.”
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.