section 1235 inconsistent statements in California

2021(See People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981 , 987-989 [where witness testified to events leading up to his possession of marijuana but denied recalling whether defendant provided it, his testimony was “deliberate evasion” that “constitute[d] an implied denial” defendant furnished him with marijuana, which was inconsistent with witness’s out-of-court statements in which he identified defendant as his supplier]; see also People v. Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 463 [“a witness’s deliberate evasion of questioning can constitute an implied denial that amounts to inconsistency, rendering a prior state

2020(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 723 .) A complete refusal to answer any questions generally will not support a determination of inconsistency under Evidence Code section 1235 because, in that situation “there is simply no ‘statement’ in the record which is inconsistent, or for that matter consistent, with prior statements.” (Rios, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 864 .) “However, a witness’s deliberate evasion of questioning can constitute an implied denial that amounts to inconsistency, rendering a prior statement admissible under Evidence Code section 1235.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th

2021(See People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981 , 987-989 [where witness testified to events leading up to his possession of marijuana but denied recalling whether defendant provided it, his testimony was “deliberate evasion” that “constitute[d] an implied denial” defendant furnished him with marijuana, which was inconsistent with witness’s out-of-court statements in which he identified defendant as his supplier]; see also People v. Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 463 [“a witness’s deliberate evasion of questioning can constitute an implied denial that amounts to inconsistency, rendering a prior state

2016“Inconsistency in effect, rather than contradiction in express terms, is the test for admitting a witness’ prior statement . . . .” (People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981, 988 .) When the record supports a finding that the witness is being deliberately evasive at trial, the evasiveness is an implied denial of prior statements that authorizes the admission of the witness’s prior statements under Evidence Code section 1235.

2025(People v. Gunder (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 412, 418 ; People v. Sam (1969) 71 Cal.2d 194, 208-210 .) The rule prohibiting application of Evidence Code section 1235 to the prior statements of a forgetful witness does not apply where the witness is deliberately evasive or feigns lack of memory at trial. “[A] trial witness’s deliberately evasive forgetfulness is an implied denial of prior statements, which creates ‘inconsistency in effect’ and authorizes admission of the witness’s prior statements under Evidence Code section 1235.” (People v. Perez (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 760, 764 .) As long as there

1980In People v. Green, supra, 3 Cal.3d 981, 988-989 , the California Supreme Court held that although in normal circumstances the testimony of a witness that she does not remember an event is not “inconsistent” with a prior statement by her describing that event (People v. Sam (1969) 71 Cal.2d 194, 208-210 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 804 , 454 P.2d 700 ]), a deliberately evasive “I don’t remember” constitutes an implied denial of the fact, which is thus materially inconsistent in effect with the prior statement, rendering the prior statement admissible under Evidence Code section 1235.

2020(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 723 .) A complete refusal to answer any questions generally will not support a determination of inconsistency under Evidence Code section 1235 because, in that situation “there is simply no ‘statement’ in the record which is inconsistent, or for that matter consistent, with prior statements.” (Rios, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 864 .) “However, a witness’s deliberate evasion of questioning can constitute an implied denial that amounts to inconsistency, rendering a prior statement admissible under Evidence Code section 1235.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th

2020(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 723 .) A complete refusal to answer any questions generally will not support a determination of inconsistency under Evidence Code section 1235 because, in that situation “there is simply no ‘statement’ in the record which is inconsistent, or for that matter consistent, with prior statements.” (Rios, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 864 .) “However, a witness’s deliberate evasion of questioning can constitute an implied denial that amounts to inconsistency, rendering a prior statement admissible under Evidence Code section 1235.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th

2022In Rios, the prosecutor called two witnesses to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony that the defendant committed a murder, but both witnesses refused to answer questions on the stand other than to state their names and, as to one witness, his age. ( Rios, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at pp. 860-861.) The trial court ruled the witnesses’ prior statements to detectives implicating the defendant were admissible as inconsistent statements under Evidence Code section 1235.

2021(Id. at p. 860.) Thus, the statements were admissible as inconsistent statements under Evidence Code section 1235. ( Rios, supra, at p. 860 .) The Rios court reversed, concluding the admission of the witnesses’ prior statements violated the defendant’s right to confrontation and the rules against hearsay; it held there is no testimony from which an inconsistency with any earlier statement may be implied when a witness gives no testimony and refuses to answer all questions.

2021(See People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981 , 987-989 [where witness testified to events leading up to his possession of marijuana but denied recalling whether defendant provided it, his testimony was “deliberate evasion” that “constitute[d] an implied denial” defendant furnished him with marijuana, which was inconsistent with witness’s out-of-court statements in which he identified defendant as his supplier]; see also People v. Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 463 [“a witness’s deliberate evasion of questioning can constitute an implied denial that amounts to inconsistency, rendering a prior state

2020(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 723 .) A complete refusal to answer any questions generally will not support a determination of inconsistency under Evidence Code section 1235 because, in that situation “there is simply no ‘statement’ in the record which is inconsistent, or for that matter consistent, with prior statements.” (Rios, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 864 .) “However, a witness’s deliberate evasion of questioning can constitute an implied denial that amounts to inconsistency, rendering a prior statement admissible under Evidence Code section 1235.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th

2024(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 153 (Arias); People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1220 (Johnson).) “This routine application of state evidentiary law does not implicate defendant’s constitutional rights.” (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 545 ; Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 76 .) 11 said Castro kissed her three times with his tongue during the 2013 visit.

2024(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 153 (Arias).) Under Watson, we will reverse a conviction where it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent the error.

2010(See People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 106, 120 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 687 , 990 P.2d 563 ] [trial court’s finding regarding applicability of a hearsay exception is reviewed for abuse of discretion].) This hearsay exception provides that “[e]vidence 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.” (Evid.

2010(See People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 106, 120 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 687 , 990 P.2d 563 ] [trial court’s finding regarding applicability of a hearsay exception is reviewed for abuse of discretion].) This hearsay exception provides that “[e]vidence 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.” (Evid.

2026(People v. Gunder (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 412, 418.) The admission of a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1235 and 770 does not violate Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 and the Sixth Amendment because “[t]he circumstance of feigned memory loss is not parallel to an entire refusal to testify.

2025(People v. Gunder (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 412, 418 ; People v. Sam (1969) 71 Cal.2d 194, 208-210 .) The rule prohibiting application of Evidence Code section 1235 to the prior statements of a forgetful witness does not apply where the witness is deliberately evasive or feigns lack of memory at trial. “[A] trial witness’s deliberately evasive forgetfulness is an implied denial of prior statements, which creates ‘inconsistency in effect’ and authorizes admission of the witness’s prior statements under Evidence Code section 1235.” (People v. Perez (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 760, 764 .) As long as there

2023(People v. Chhoun (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1, 44 .) 2.

2022Prior inconsistent statements admitted under 16. [] section 1235 may be considered for their truth as well as for impeachment.” (Chhoun, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 44 .) We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude a hearsay statement under section 1235 for abuse of discretion.

2025(People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1219-1220 ; People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 711 ; People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 633 ; People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 415 (Mataele).) “[T]he true point of distinction is not whether the witness selectively remembers some and forgets other circumstances, but rather whether the record supports a finding that the forgetfulness at trial is deliberately evasive.” (Perez, at p. 764.) “We review the trial court’s rulings regarding the admissibility of the evidence for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] A trial court’s decision

2025(People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1219-1220 ; People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 711 ; People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 633 ; People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 415 (Mataele).) “[T]he true point of distinction is not whether the witness selectively remembers some and forgets other circumstances, but rather whether the record supports a finding that the forgetfulness at trial is deliberately evasive.” (Perez, at p. 764.) “We review the trial court’s rulings regarding the admissibility of the evidence for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.] A trial court’s decision

2023The prosecutor again agreed with defense counsel that the police interview would only be admitted as a prior consistent statement if defense counsel “first impeach[es] my witness.” And that is what happened at trial. 25 An appellant “cannot argue the court erred in failing to conduct an analysis it was not asked to conduct.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 438, fn. 5 .) To the contrary, appellate review “is in fact barred when the issue involves the admission (Evid.

2022(See People v. Woodberry (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 695, 704 [“ ‘In order that a witness’ present testimony be subject to impeachment, the prior statement must be clearly inconsistent; “[b]ut inconsistency in effect rather than contradiction in express terms is the test.” ’ ” (Italics omitted.)].) Accordingly, Deputy Lee’s CAD log statement was inadmissible as an inconsistent statement pursuant to Evidence Code section 1235.

2021(Rios, at p. 864; see id. at pp. 862-864.) The Rios court further held, “[T]he admission of a prior statement made by a witness who stonewalls at trial and refuses to answer any question on direct or cross-examination denies a defendant the right to confrontation which contemplates a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the witness.” (Rios, at p. 864 [noting “[s]urrounding circumstances may give assurance of reliability to statements not subject at the time to cross-examination and provide the jury with factors for judging the credibility of the witness and the truthfulness of the testimony

2021(Rios, at p. 864; see id. at pp. 862-864.) The Rios court further held, “[T]he admission of a prior statement made by a witness who stonewalls at trial and refuses to answer any question on direct or cross-examination denies a defendant the right to confrontation which contemplates a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the witness.” (Rios, at p. 864 [noting “[s]urrounding circumstances may give assurance of reliability to statements not subject at the time to cross-examination and provide the jury with factors for judging the credibility of the witness and the truthfulness of the testimony

2020(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 723 .) A complete refusal to answer any questions generally will not support a determination of inconsistency under Evidence Code section 1235 because, in that situation “there is simply no ‘statement’ in the record which is inconsistent, or for that matter consistent, with prior statements.” (Rios, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 864 .) “However, a witness’s deliberate evasion of questioning can constitute an implied denial that amounts to inconsistency, rendering a prior statement admissible under Evidence Code section 1235.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th

2016(E.g., People v. Abel 12 (2012) 53 Cal.4th 891, 928 [noting that evidence a defendant possessed weapons that were not used to commit a crime is inadmissible to show the defendant committed a criminal act, but could be admitted on the issue of a witness’s credibility].) We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.