spontaneous declaration exception in California

2026Code, § 1240 [“Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) [w]as made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception”].) Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting the 911 call under this hearsay 14 exception. “ ‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this ne

2026(People v. Roberts (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 469 , 477.) “‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the occurrence preceding it.’” (People

2015Code, § 1240.) “‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the occurrence preceding it.’” (People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 318 .)

2015Co., supra, at p. 468.) "[T]he mental state of the declarant—that is, the question of whether he or she was sufficiently under stress so as to dramatically reduce the possibility of deliberation and 12 prevarication—is crucial to determining whether the exception applies." (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 269-270 (Lucas).) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Salazar's statement to Canseco was not admissible pursuant to the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule.

2014A bench trial commenced on January 2, 2013. 9 “‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence preceding it.’ [Citations.]” (

2009Code, § 1240.) “ ‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the occurrence preceding it.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Poggi, supra, 45 Cal.

2026Code, § 1240 [“Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) [w]as made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception”].) Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting the 911 call under this hearsay 14 exception. “ ‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this ne

2026Code, § 1240 [“Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) [w]as made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception”].) Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting the 911 call under this hearsay 14 exception. “ ‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this ne

2023Analysis Evidence Code section 1240 provides, “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) Was made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception.” “ ‘ “To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecti

2016Analysis “ ‘ “To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the 9 Evidence Code section 1240 provides: “Evidence of a statement is not made

2026(People v. Roberts (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 469 , 477.) “‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the occurrence preceding it.’” (People

2016Code, § 1240.) “‘“To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the occurrence preceding it.”’” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789,

1991Evidence admitted under a traditional hearsay exception does not violate the confrontation clause if there are sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the trier of fact to evaluate the truth of the out-of-court statement. ( Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 63-66 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-608 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ]; Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 U.S. 204, 213 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301-302 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 ].) Statements admitted under the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule are considered reliable because their spontaneity ensures that the declarant has not had time to reflect and fab

1991Evidence admitted under a traditional hearsay exception does not violate the confrontation clause if there are sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the trier of fact to evaluate the truth of the out-of-court statement. ( Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 63-66 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-608 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ]; Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 U.S. 204, 213 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301-302 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 ].) Statements admitted under the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule are considered reliable because their spontaneity ensures that the declarant has not had time to reflect and fab

1991Evidence admitted under a traditional hearsay exception does not violate the confrontation clause if there are sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the trier of fact to evaluate the truth of the out-of-court statement. ( Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 63-66 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-608 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ]; Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 U.S. 204, 213 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301-302 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 ].) Statements admitted under the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule are considered reliable because their spontaneity ensures that the declarant has not had time to reflect and fab

1991Evidence admitted under a traditional hearsay exception does not violate the confrontation clause if there are sufficient indicia of reliability to allow the trier of fact to evaluate the truth of the out-of-court statement. ( Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 63-66 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-608 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ]; Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 U.S. 204, 213 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301-302 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 ].) Statements admitted under the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule are considered reliable because their spontaneity ensures that the declarant has not had time to reflect and fab

2014(People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 541 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ].) Defendant argues that Latasha W.’s statement to Officer Martinez did not meet the second Poggi requirement, i.e., the declaration was not made while Latasha W.’s reflective powers remained in abeyance.

2014(People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 541 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ].) Defendant argues that Latasha W.’s statement to Officer Martinez did not meet the second Poggi requirement, i.e., the declaration was not made while Latasha W.’s reflective powers remained in abeyance.

1990In a number of cases the high court has made clear that the focus of its concern “has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability to ‘afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement.’ ” (Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 U.S. 204, 213 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 ].) Later, in Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 66 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ], the court held this reliability “can be inferred without more . . . where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” We agree with our Court of Appeal that “the s

1990In a number of cases the high court has made clear that the focus of its concern “has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability to ‘afford the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement.’ ” (Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 U.S. 204, 213 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 ].) Later, in Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 66 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ], the court held this reliability “can be inferred without more . . . where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” We agree with our Court of Appeal that “the s

2023Analysis Evidence Code section 1240 provides, “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) Was made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception.” “ ‘ “To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecti

2023Analysis Evidence Code section 1240 provides, “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) Was made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception.” “ ‘ “To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecti

2026Code, § 1240 [“Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) [w]as made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception”].) Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting the 911 call under this hearsay 14 exception. “ ‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this ne

2026Code, § 1240 [“Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [¶] (a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) [w]as made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception”].) Defendant argues the trial court erred in admitting the 911 call under this hearsay 14 exception. “ ‘To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this ne

2014(People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115, 175 .) Here, the trial court did not make any findings as to why the citizen’s statements to the sergeant were “spontaneous” declarations.

1991(People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115, 175 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ]; People v. Provencio (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 290, 302 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 330 ].) The trial court admitted the statement based on finding the phone call was staged at the direction of the defendants to make an inquiry for money from Flores’s brother, with Flores “perhaps having been threatened, having been beaten, perhaps even having a gun held on him.” The court believed the event Flores was describing when he said he had been hurt was not the kidnapping 1 or the shooting (which had not yet happened) but was “maybe ho

1991(See In re Damon H. (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 471, 477-479 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 623 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 155 Cal. App.3d 653, 663 [ 202 Cal. Rptr. 289 ]; People v. Orduno (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 738, 746-748 [145 *1267 Cal. Rptr. 806].) Defendant makes no argument that there was anything about the facts of this case that made the declarant's statement unreliable.

1985(Ibid.) 9 The circumstances in People v. Orduno, supra, 80 Cal.App.3d 738 , are similar to those in the case at bench.

2016(Ibid.; see also People v. Gutierrez (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 170, 177-178 (Gutierrez) [trial court exercises discretion in determining whether there is a foundation for admitting spontaneous statements].) In Gutierrez, the defendant was convicted of robbery.

2016Code, § 1240.) “‘“To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the occurrence preceding it.”’” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789,

2016Code, § 1240.) “‘“To render [statements] admissible [under the spontaneous declaration exception] it is required that (1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the occurrence preceding it.”’” ( Gutierrez, supra, at pp. 809-810 ; see Peo

2015Co., supra, at p. 468.) "[T]he mental state of the declarant—that is, the question of whether he or she was sufficiently under stress so as to dramatically reduce the possibility of deliberation and 12 prevarication—is crucial to determining whether the exception applies." (People v. Lucas (2014) 60 Cal.4th 153, 269-270 (Lucas).) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Salazar's statement to Canseco was not admissible pursuant to the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule.

2015(Lucas, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 270 .) Given that Canseco was not available to testify and that he had not been asked any questions regarding Salazar's demeanor or voice when Salazar made the statement, the trial court had no basis to assess the level of stress or excitement that Salazar may or may not have been under at the time he made the statement.