For the purpose of establishing prima facie evidence of the fact that a person being tried for a crime or public offense under the laws of this State has been convicted of an act punishable by imprisonment in a state prison, county jail or city jail of this State, and has served a term therefor in any penal institution, or has been convicted of an act in any other state, which would be punishable as a crime in this State, and has served a term therefor in any state penitentiary, reformatory, county jail or city jail, or has been convicted of an act declared to be a crime by any act or law of the United States, and has served a term therefor in any penal institution, the records or copies of records of any state penitentiary, reformatory, county jail, city jail, or federal penitentiary in which such person has been imprisoned, when such records or copies thereof have been certified by the official custodian of such records, may be introduced as such evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case:
People v. Tenner, 862 P.2d 840 (Cal. 1993).
People v. Tenner, 862 P.2d 840 (Cal. 1993).
· cites it 4× “(Pen. Code, § 969b.) No statute requires the prosecution to produce the prison packet, however, and it was not offered into evidence in this case.”
People v. Delgado, 183 P.3d 1226 (Cal. 2008).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 969b; Evid. Code, § 1280 [hearsay exception for contemporaneous official record]; see, e.”
People v. Martinez, 990 P.2d 563 (Cal. 2000).
· cites it 2× “" (Pen.Code, § 969b.) Use of such records, while not the sole manner of proof available to the People, is the "common method of proof in such situations (see 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.”
People v. Burroughs, 6 Cal. App. 5th 378 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“Jurors shall be admonished that they may not find a person a sexually violent predator based on prior offenses absent relevant evidence of a currently diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she…”
People v. Yates, 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“Penal Code section 969b also "allows the admission into evidence of records or certified copies of records 'of any state penitentiary, reformatory, county jail, city jail, or federal penitentiary in which' the defendant has been imprisoned to prove that a person has been…”
People v. Ashley, 267 P.2d 271 (Cal. 1954).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, §§ 969b, 3024, subd. (c).) The fact that the minimum term of sentence is thereby increased does not render the law unconstitutional.”
People v. Miles, 183 P.3d 1236 (Cal. 2008).
“(Pen. Code, § 969b; Evid. Code, § 1280 [hearsay exception for contemporaneous official records]; People v.”
People v. Roa, 11 Cal. App. 5th 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “, victim statements, contained in probation and sentencing reports, then victims would be required to testify—an interpretation that would defeat the apparent purposes of the amendment.”
People v. Richardson, 169 P.2d 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946).
· cites it 3× “(Pen. Code, § 969b; People v. Pantos, 36 Cal.”
People v. Taulton, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4616 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
“” Records referenced in Penal Code section 969b fall into the latter category. “[Rjecords or copies of records of any state penitentiary, reformatory, county jail, city jail, or federal penitentiary in which [defendant] has been imprisoned” (Pen.”
People v. Dorado, 398 P.2d 361 (Cal. 1965).
“) Finally, defendant’s testimony tended to corroborate these records since he revealed an awareness that upon his return to prison following a parole violation, his sentence had been increased to maximum. This evidence shows that defendant originally suffered imprisonment in…”
People v. Larson, 194 Cal. App. 4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “) Defendant argues that the information in his prison priors packet (Pen. Code, § 969b) should be treated the same: documents are being admitted at a trial to prove an allegation against the defendant, and thus the preparer should be brought to court, and made subject to…”
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.