Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
26 California opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Zapienred2 sentences2022That section provides: “Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party . . . and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.” In applying the rule, “ ‘courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 959 .) In People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 , we uph 2021Although section 356 prevents us from “ ‘draw[ing] narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 959 ), because the last exchange between defendant and the visitor marks an abrupt shift of subject, the final exchange can be considered independently without creating a misleading impression of the subject addressed. | 4 | 14 |
People v. Ariasgreen2 sentences2022As alleged in the FAC, the NOV states that “no coastal permits had been issued for the demolition of the two previous motels or for the construction of the Shore Hotel, and that, rather than the moderately priced Travel Lodge that had been conditionally permitted, the Shore Hotel was an unauthorized luxury boutique hotel.” Evidence Code section 356 “prevent[s] the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed.” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 156 .) When applying this rule of completeness, “ ‘th 2016(See People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 239 [“[o]nce defendant had introduced a portion of [a witness’s] interview with [the police officer] into evidence, the prosecution was entitled to introduce the remainder of [the witness’s] interview to place in context the isolated statements of [the witness] related by [the officer] on direct examination by the defense”]; People v. Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 263, 269 .) The purpose of section 356 is “to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subject | 2 | 5 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2007(See People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 235 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ].) “ ‘ “In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do .not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry. ‘In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course .of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. . . . [Citation.]” ’ 2007(See People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 235 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ].) “ ‘ “In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do .not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry. ‘In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course .of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. . . . [Citation.]” ’ | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2013Thus, it has been held: the court must exclude such additional evidence if not relevant to the conversation already in evidence.” (People v. Gambos (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 187, 192-193 , italics omitted.) The purpose of the section is to 15 place the portions of the admitted conversation or writing in context and to “prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed.” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 156 (Arias).) It is true that “[i]n applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do not draw 1993The prosecutor then offered into evidence, and the court ruled admissible over defendant’s objection, the transcript of the entire testimony given by Perez at the prior hearing. 5 Evidence Code section 356 provides, in pertinent part: “Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party “In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry. ‘In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or c | 2 | 2 |
People v. Vinesred2 sentences2021As our Supreme Court has stated: “Application of Evidence Code section 356 hinges on the requirement that the two portions of a statement be ‘on the same subject.’ . . . ‘ “In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 861 , overruled on another point in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56 .) However, this does not end the inquiry. 2015The trial court ruled that the statement was inadmissible. 18 [Citations.]” (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 460 ; see also People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 959 [in applying Evidence Code section 356, courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry].) The section applies only to “statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the portion of the conversation originally introduced. [Citation.] Statements pertaining to other matters may be excluded.” (People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 130 ; see also People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 861 . | 1 | 3 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2025“In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence.” ’ ” ’ ” (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 600 .) This includes admission of portions “ ‘of the same interview or conversation, even if they are self-serving’ so long as they ‘ “have some bearing upon, or connection wit 2022(People v. Armstrong (2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 786 (Armstrong).) Although “narrow lines should not be drawn around the exact subject of inquiry” in determining whether two portions of a statement concern the same subject, “the statutory language ‘on the same subject’ cannot be rendered meaningless by an interpretation that draws no lines at all.” (People v. Cornejo (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 36, 74 .) Evidence Code section 356 “applies only to statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the portion of the conversation originally introduced. [Citation.] Statements pertaining to other matt | 1 | 2 |
People v. Armstronggreen1 sentence2022(People v. Armstrong (2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 786 (Armstrong).) Although “narrow lines should not be drawn around the exact subject of inquiry” in determining whether two portions of a statement concern the same subject, “the statutory language ‘on the same subject’ cannot be rendered meaningless by an interpretation that draws no lines at all.” (People v. Cornejo (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 36, 74 .) Evidence Code section 356 “applies only to statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the portion of the conversation originally introduced. [Citation.] Statements pertaining to other matt | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harrisongreen1 sentence2016(See People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 239 [“[o]nce defendant had introduced a portion of [a witness’s] interview with [the police officer] into evidence, the prosecution was entitled to introduce the remainder of [the witness’s] interview to place in context the isolated statements of [the witness] related by [the officer] on direct examination by the defense”]; People v. Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 263, 269 .) The purpose of section 356 is “to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subject | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pridegreen2 sentences2007(See People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 235 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ].) “ ‘ “In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do .not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry. ‘In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course .of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. . . . [Citation.]” ’ 2007(See People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 235 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 833 P.2d 643 ].) “ ‘ “In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do .not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry. ‘In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course .of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. . . . [Citation.]” ’ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ketchelred2 sentences1989“In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. ...” (Rosenberg v. Wittenborn (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 846, 852 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 459 ]; People v. Williams (1975) 13 Cal.3d 559, 565 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 210 , 531 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 536 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 5 1989“In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. ...” (Rosenberg v. Wittenborn (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 846, 852 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 459 ]; People v. Williams (1975) 13 Cal.3d 559, 565 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 210 , 531 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 536 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 5 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1989“In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. ...” (Rosenberg v. Wittenborn (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 846, 852 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 459 ]; People v. Williams (1975) 13 Cal.3d 559, 565 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 210 , 531 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 536 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 5 1989“In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. ...” (Rosenberg v. Wittenborn (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 846, 852 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 459 ]; People v. Williams (1975) 13 Cal.3d 559, 565 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 210 , 531 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 536 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 5 | 1 | 1 |
Rosenberg v. Wittenborngreen2 sentences1989“In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. ...” (Rosenberg v. Wittenborn (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 846, 852 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 459 ]; People v. Williams (1975) 13 Cal.3d 559, 565 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 210 , 531 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 536 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 5 1989“In the event a statement admitted in evidence constitutes part of a conversation or correspondence, the opponent is entitled to have placed in evidence all that was said or written by or to the declarant in the course of such conversation or correspondence, provided the other statements have some bearing upon, or connection with, the admission or declaration in evidence. ...” (Rosenberg v. Wittenborn (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 846, 852 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 459 ]; People v. Williams (1975) 13 Cal.3d 559, 565 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 210 , 531 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 536 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 5 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Clark
green
2 sentences2022It reads: “Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; … and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.” (§ 356.) “The purpose of … section 356 is ‘to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed.’ ” (People 2022That section provides: “Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party . . . and when a detached act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.” In applying the rule, “ ‘courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry.’ ” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 959 .) In People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 , we uph | 3 | 2022–2025 |
People v. Hardy
green
2 sentences2025Code, § 356.) 37. “ ‘ “The purpose of this section is to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed.” ’ ” (People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 104 .) “ ‘ “ ‘[T]he courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry. 2021As our Supreme Court has stated: “Application of Evidence Code section 356 hinges on the requirement that the two portions of a statement be ‘on the same subject.’ . . . ‘ “In applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 861 , overruled on another point in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56 .) However, this does not end the inquiry. | 2 | 2021–2025 |
People v. Samuels
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Armstrong (2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 786 (Armstrong).) Although “narrow lines should not be drawn around the exact subject of inquiry” in determining whether two portions of a statement concern the same subject, “the statutory language ‘on the same subject’ cannot be rendered meaningless by an interpretation that draws no lines at all.” (People v. Cornejo (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 36, 74 .) Evidence Code section 356 “applies only to statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the portion of the conversation originally introduced. [Citation.] Statements pertaining to other matt 2015The trial court ruled that the statement was inadmissible. 18 [Citations.]” (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 460 ; see also People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 959 [in applying Evidence Code section 356, courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry].) The section applies only to “statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the portion of the conversation originally introduced. [Citation.] Statements pertaining to other matters may be excluded.” (People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 130 ; see also People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 861 . | 2 | 2015–2022 |
People v. Parrish
green
2 sentences2016(See People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 239 [“[o]nce defendant had introduced a portion of [a witness’s] interview with [the police officer] into evidence, the prosecution was entitled to introduce the remainder of [the witness’s] interview to place in context the isolated statements of [the witness] related by [the officer] on direct examination by the defense”]; People v. Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 263, 269 .) The purpose of section 356 is “to prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subject 2015Evidence Code section 356 provides, “Where part of an act, declaration, conversation, or writing is given in evidence by one party, the whole on the same subject may be inquired into by an adverse party; . . . when a . . . conversation . . . is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation, or writing which is necessary to make it understood may also be given in evidence.” Evidence Code section 356 “is founded not on reliability but on fairness so that one party may not use ‘selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression | 2 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Pearson
green
2 sentences2015The trial court ruled that the statement was inadmissible. 18 [Citations.]” (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 460 ; see also People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 959 [in applying Evidence Code section 356, courts do not draw narrow lines around the exact subject of inquiry].) The section applies only to “statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the portion of the conversation originally introduced. [Citation.] Statements pertaining to other matters may be excluded.” (People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 130 ; see also People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 861 . 2015(People v. Pearson, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 447 ; People v. Snow, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 77-78.) One exception to this general rule is when objecting would be futile. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Sanders
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Sanders[, supra,] 11 Cal.4th 475 , 520 . . . [where defense counsel elicited portions of investigative interview with witness, prosecution not foreclosed from inquiring into context of statements on redirect examination of witness and cross-examination of investigator].)‖ (People v. Harris, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 334–335.) Defendant sought admission of Combs‘s ―bullets were meant for you‖ statement because it supported his defense theory Combs was the shooter. 2013(People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475 , 520 . . . [where defense counsel elicited portions of investigative interview with witness, prosecution not foreclosed from inquiring into context of statements on redirect examination of witness and cross-examination of investigator].)‖ (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310 , 334– 335.) Crawford held the confrontation clause of the Constitution bars the admission of out-of-court ―testimonial‖ statements except when the declarant is unavailable and the 12 defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. ( Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. a | 2 | 2005–2013 |
People v. Cornejo
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Armstrong (2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 786 (Armstrong).) Although “narrow lines should not be drawn around the exact subject of inquiry” in determining whether two portions of a statement concern the same subject, “the statutory language ‘on the same subject’ cannot be rendered meaningless by an interpretation that draws no lines at all.” (People v. Cornejo (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 36, 74 .) Evidence Code section 356 “applies only to statements that have some bearing upon, or connection with, the portion of the conversation originally introduced. [Citation.] Statements pertaining to other matt | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Snow
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Pearson, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 447 ; People v. Snow, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 77-78.) One exception to this general rule is when objecting would be futile. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Gambos
green
1 sentence2013Thus, it has been held: the court must exclude such additional evidence if not relevant to the conversation already in evidence.” (People v. Gambos (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 187, 192-193 , italics omitted.) The purpose of the section is to 15 place the portions of the admitted conversation or writing in context and to “prevent the use of selected aspects of a conversation, act, declaration, or writing, so as to create a misleading impression on the subjects addressed.” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 156 (Arias).) It is true that “[i]n applying Evidence Code section 356 the courts do not draw | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475 , 520 . . . [where defense counsel elicited portions of investigative interview with witness, prosecution not foreclosed from inquiring into context of statements on redirect examination of witness and cross-examination of investigator].)‖ (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310 , 334– 335.) Crawford held the confrontation clause of the Constitution bars the admission of out-of-court ―testimonial‖ statements except when the declarant is unavailable and the 12 defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. ( Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. a | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.