hearsay rule in California

2026(People v. Malik (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 587 , 597–598.) Sanchez’s limitations on case-specific hearsay are inapplicable where the evidence is “independently proven by competent evidence or [is] covered by a hearsay exception.” (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 665 .) Here, the prosecution only sought to admit the fact of appellant’s prior conviction, which may be established by documentary evidence admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.

2026(People v. Malik (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 587 , 597–598.) Sanchez’s limitations on case-specific hearsay are inapplicable where the evidence is “independently proven by competent evidence or [is] covered by a hearsay exception.” (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 665 .) Here, the prosecution only sought to admit the fact of appellant’s prior conviction, which may be established by documentary evidence admitted under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.

2026Like any other hearsay evidence, it must be properly admitted through an applicable hearsay exception.” (Id. at p. 684, fn. omitted.) Moreover, where a “prosecution expert seeks to relate testimonial hearsay, there is a confrontation clause violation unless (1) there is a showing of unavailability and (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” (Id. at p. 686; see generally Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 .) At least one California Court of Appeal has concluded that Sanchez extends to case-specific hearsay admitted through cross-examination of expert witnesses.

2026Alternatively, the evidence can be admitted through an appropriate witness and the expert may assume its truth in a properly worded hypothetical question in the traditional manner.” (Id. at p. 684, fn. omitted.) “The distinction between case-specific facts and background information thus is crucial — the former may be excluded as hearsay, the latter may not.” (People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16, 26 (Veamatahau); see also id. at p. 30 [“the relevant hearsay analysis under Sanchez is whether the expert is relating general or case-specific out-of-court statements”].) When distinguishing bet

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

2025(People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 318 .) The crucial element in determining whether a declaration is sufficiently reliable to be admissible under this exception to the hearsay rule is not the nature of the statement but the mental state of the speaker.

2025Governing Law and Standard of Review Evidence Code section 1230 provides, in relevant part: “Evidence of a statement by a declarant having sufficient 7 knowledge of the subject is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and the statement, when made . . . so far subjected him to the risk of . . . criminal liability . . . that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.” To secure admission of a hearsay statement against the declarant’s penal interest, “[t]he proponent of such evidence must sh

2023Code, § 1200, subd. (b)), the rule has a number of exceptions.” (People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 710 ; accord, People v. Landau (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 850, 866 [“Hearsay evidence is inadmissible ‘[e]xcept as provided by law.”’].) Evidence Code section 1230 provides a hearsay exception for statements against interest: “Evidence of a statement by a declarant having sufficient knowledge of the subject is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and the statement, when made, was so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interes

2026(People v. Goodner (Jan. 13, 2026, A173940) [nonpub. opn.].) 6 stated.” (§ 1200, subd. (a).) Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as provided by law. (§ 1200, subd. (b).) Under section 813, the provision on which the trial court relied to admit C.E.’s testimony about the Toyota’s repair costs, the owner of property may give an opinion about the property’s value. (§ 813, subd. (a)(2).) The parties agree that the challenged testimony was inadmissible under either this provision or any exception to the hearsay rule and that state-law errors are reviewed for harmlessness under People v. Watson

2022(Ramirez, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1526 [applying People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 harmless error test to error in admitting hearsay evidence]; Meacham, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at p. 160 [same].) The trial court said that even if the complaint doctrine did not apply, based on the totality of the evidence, the testimony by the sister was admissible under the prior consistent or inconsistent statement exception to the hearsay rule and the trial court would still have overruled the objection.

2023Code, § 1240, subd. (a) [spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule applicable where statement describes an act perceived by declarant while under the stress of excitement caused by the perception]; People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 905 , [“Where the declarant is truly excited and makes a statement about a concurrently or recently perceived event before having the opportunity to think through the possible consequences of his utterance, it is likely to be a reliable statement.”], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724, fn. 6 .) 49. statement ma

2023(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 [“an appellate court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review to any ruling by a trial court on the admissibility of evidence, including one that turns on the hearsay nature of the evidence in question”]; accord, People v. Yates (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 474, 484 ; see Zanone v. City of Whittier (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 174, 190, fn. 21 [“We review the exclusion of hearsay evidence on the ground it does not qualify for admission as a business record for abuse of discretion.”].) With respect to the DCFS reports, the family court found Father fail

2025Standard of Review “[A] trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a party has established the foundational requirements for a hearsay exception (People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 106, 120 ) and ‘[a] ruling on the admissibility of evidence implies whatever finding of fact is prerequisite thereto[.]’ (Evid.

2024(See People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 106, 134 [concluding that a trial court may admit and consider a CLETS printout under the official records exception to the hearsay rule].) Not only is the consideration of the certified records specifically contemplated by statute to establish proof of a prior prison term, we conclude this does not offend constitutional law.

2025(See People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 583 .) 94 PEOPLE v. BARRETT Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. admissible under a different exception, it cannot be said that the evidence was admitted in error. [Citation.] ‘It is axiomatic that we review the trial court’s rulings and not its reasoning. [Citations.]’ (People v. Mason (1991) 52 Cal.3d 909, 944 .)” (People v. Martinez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 400, 408 .) Evidence Code section 1235 provides, “Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his [or her] testimony

2024As relevant here, Evidence Code section 1250 provides that an out-of-court statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when it is offered “to prove or explain acts or conduct of the declarant.” (Id., subd. (a)(2).) “ ‘[A] prerequisite to this exception to the hearsay rule is that the declarant’s mental state or conduct be factually relevant.’ ” (People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 586 .) Such evidence is inadmissible “if the statement was made under circumstances such as to indicate its lack of trustworthiness.” (Evid.

2026(Idaho v. Wright (1990) 497 U.S. 805, 822, 823 ; see also People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 529 [“The hearsay exception for spontaneous declarations is among those ‘firmly rooted’ exceptions that carry sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause.”].) Second, the trial court’s implied finding as to Jane Doe’s mental state under Evidence Code section 1240 is a determination of preliminary fact subject to appellate review for substantial evidence.

2024Evidence Code section 1360 provides an exception to the hearsay rule in criminal proceedings for certain statements made by child abuse victims under the age of 12.9 Among other requirements not relevant here, the trial court must find “in a hearing 9 The United States Supreme Court holds that, “[t]o be admissible under the Confrontation Clause, hearsay evidence used to convict a defendant must possess indicia of reliability by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness, not by reference to other evidence at trial. [Citation.]” (Idaho v. Wright (1990) 497 U.S. 805, 822 .) 12. conducted outside the

2023When ruling on the motion in limine, the trial court stated: “So I think we have a clear understanding now in terms of the [c]ourt’s ruling pursuant to the Crawford analysis and also the Ohio v. Roberts [(1980) 448 U.S. 56 ] decision and standard that the [c]ourt finds that the statements made by (Ms. Doe) fall within the hearsay exception of 1240 were made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress and excitement and the powers of the declarant were still in abeyance.

2021A defendant’s constitutional right to confront prosecution witnesses is not violated “ ‘ “where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant [and] which was subject to cross-examination. . . .” (Barber v. Page [(1968) 390 U.S. 719 ,] 10 722.)’ ” (People v. Herrera (2010) 49 Cal.4th 613, 621 (Herrera), quoting People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 897 (Cromer).) This “traditional exception” to the right of confrontation is codified in Evidence Code section 1291, subdivision (a)(2), which “provides that ‘former testimony,’ such as

2026(People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 607 .) “To determine whether the declaration passes the required threshold of trustworthiness, a trial court ‘may take 62 into account not just the words but the circumstances under which they were uttered, the possible motivation of the declarant, and the declarant’s relationship to the defendant.’” (Ibid.) California courts have “recognized that the trustworthiness of such declarations is limited and that the hearsay exception should not apply to collateral assertions within declarations against penal interest.” (People v. Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 88

2026“The exception to the hearsay rule codified in Evidence Code section 1230 does not apply ‘ “to evidence of any statement or portion of a statement not itself specifically disserving to the interests of the declarant.” ’ ” (People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th 646 , 669 (Jasso).) But a statement is not made inadmissible as a “ ‘ “collateral assertion[,]” ’ ” if it is “ ‘inextricably tied to and part of a specific statement against [the declarant’s] penal interest.’ [Citation.] Whether a statement is a collateral assertion not properly admitted as a declaration against penal interest depends not on

2026In these circumstances, where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated, the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice.” (Chambers, supra, 410 U.S. at p. 302 .) Chambers is easily distinguishable, and Medrano fails to show that the other cases he cites involved a proffer of evidence as slight and as questionable in its reliability as Quezada’s.

2025Because no exception to the hearsay rule applied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the statements. 25 Without much elaboration, Davis also argues that the exclusion of Heisley’s statements was fundamentally unfair under Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284 , 302–303.

2026Defendants also cite People v. Saling (1972) 7 Cal.3d 844, 852 , People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419, 432 , and People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 147 , for the proposition a “conspiracy usually comes to an end when the substantive crime for which the coconspirators are being tried is either attained or defeated.” ( Saling, supra, at p. 852 .) Saling, Leach and Hardy involved arguments that certain statements were erroneously admitted under the coconspirators exception to the hearsay rule found in Evidence Code section 1223.

2025We decline to find forfeiture because the hearsay and confrontation clause issues were intertwined, and further, the trial court decided the statements were not hearsay in finding they were not “so inculpatory to one defendant and exculpatory as to” the declarant to fall outside the hearsay exception. 12 Evidence Code section 240, subdivision (a)(1), defines “unavailable as a witness” to mean the declarant is “[e]xempted or precluded on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning 18 that the declaration was against the declarant’s penal interest when made and that the declaration was su

2026Kyles emphasizes that “California courts consistently hold that medical and clinical records easily satisfy these requirements.” That much is true, but only “assuming a custodian of records or other duly qualified witness provides proper authentication to meet the foundational requirements of the hearsay exception.” (People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 414 .) The business records exception “‘“requires a witness to testify as to the identity of the record and its mode of preparation in every instance.”’” (Bhatt v. State Dept. of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 923, 929 , italics a

2024“A trial judge has broad discretion in admitting business records under Evidence Code section 1271.” (People v. Dorsey (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 953, 961 (Dorsey).) “The general rule with respect to documents offered under an exception to the hearsay rule is that the party offering the documents bears the burden of establishing the foundational requirement of trustworthiness.” (Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301, 319 .) The foundation for admitting a business record “is properly laid if in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to j

2026Tzul’s statement his discovery “fills me with rage” was hearsay because Tzul offered it for the truth; i.e., to prove he was “filled with rage.” This hearsay statement, however, was admissible under section 1250, subdivision (a), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for “out-of-court statements to prove the declarant’s state of mind,” where the declarant’s state of mind “‘is itself an issue in the action’ or if the evidence ‘is offered to prove or explain acts or conduct of the declarant.’” (People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 814 .)4 This part of the note was a statement of T

2026Tzul’s statement his discovery “fills me with rage” was hearsay because Tzul offered it for the truth; i.e., to prove he was “filled with rage.” This hearsay statement, however, was admissible under section 1250, subdivision (a), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for “out-of-court statements to prove the declarant’s state of mind,” where the declarant’s state of mind “‘is itself an issue in the action’ or if the evidence ‘is offered to prove or explain acts or conduct of the declarant.’” (People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 814 .) 4 This part of the note was a statement of

2026In my view, this evidence is important to assess whether the statement was “sufficiently reliable to be admissible under th[e spontaneous statement] exception to the hearsay rule.” (Farmer, 47 Cal.3d at p. 903 .) For example, in People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 40 , a police officer spoke with the five-year-old declarant “within about an hour and a half of that event” and 4 testified that, during the interview, the declarant “was emotional and was crying part of the time.” “Given the circumstances,” our high court concluded the officer’s “testimony was credible” because the declarant “ha

2023Code, § 1240, subd. (a) [spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule applicable where statement describes an act perceived by declarant while under the stress of excitement caused by the perception]; People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 905 , [“Where the declarant is truly excited and makes a statement about a concurrently or recently perceived event before having the opportunity to think through the possible consequences of his utterance, it is likely to be a reliable statement.”], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724, fn. 6 .) 49. statement ma

2026Applicable Legal Standards 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.” “For an out-of-court statement to fall within the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule, ‘ “(1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontan

2025(People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 556 .) That was because the statements were “made under conditions sufficiently trustworthy to permit their admission into evidence despite the hearsay rule.” (Ibid.) Just so here.

2026Applicable Legal Standards 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.” “For an out-of-court statement to fall within the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule, ‘ “(1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontan

2023(See People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 232 [where statement was admitted for a nonhearsay purpose, it need not have met the reliability requirements of a hearsay exception because a challenge to the statement’s reliability “‘at most, goes to the weight of the evidence, and not its admissibility’”]; People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 72 [same].) Moreover, the People bolstered the reliability of the evidence by introducing three retail price listings: Walmart ($357), Amazon.com ($500), and Gym and Fitness ($498), all of which supported the jury’s implied finding the fair market value o

2023(People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 230 ; People v. Perez (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 896 , 905, review granted Dec. 9, 2020, S265254.) As amended by Senate Bill No. 775, section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) allows the trial court to consider evidence from the preliminary hearing if certain criteria for admissibility are met, that is, if the proffered statements fall within an exception to the hearsay rule.

2023Code, §§ 1200, subd. (b), 1201, 702, subd. (a); People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 224-225 [“As with all multiple hearsay, the question is whether each hearsay statement fell within an exception to the hearsay rule”]).

2025Code, § 452.5, subd. (b)(1).)4 As explained in People v. Duran (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448 , based on the “clear and unambiguous” statutory language, “Evidence Code section 452.5, subdivision (b) creates a hearsay 4 Evidence Code section 1280 provides an exception to the hearsay rule when a “writing was made by and within the scope of duty of a public employee,” “at or near the time of the act, condition, or event,” and under circumstances that “were such as to indicate its trustworthiness.” (Evid.

2024Section 452.5, subdivision (b) permits admission of certified records of conviction “to prove the commission, attempted commission, or solicitation of a criminal offense, prior conviction, service of a prison term, or other act, condition, or event recorded by the record.” In this way, “section 452.5, subdivision (b) creates a hearsay exception allowing admission of qualifying court records to prove not only the fact of conviction, but also that the offense reflected in the record occurred.” (People v. Duran (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1460 .) Defendant argues that our Supreme Court disagreed

2026(People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 607 .) “To determine whether the declaration passes the required threshold of trustworthiness, a trial court ‘may take 62 into account not just the words but the circumstances under which they were uttered, the possible motivation of the declarant, and the declarant’s relationship to the defendant.’” (Ibid.) California courts have “recognized that the trustworthiness of such declarations is limited and that the hearsay exception should not apply to collateral assertions within declarations against penal interest.” (People v. Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 88

2024Although the court concluded Eduardo’s declaration as unreliable, “[e]xcept in . . . rare instances of demonstrable falsity, doubts about the credibility of the in-court witness should be left for the jury’s resolution; such doubts do not afford a ground for refusing to admit evidence under the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest.” (Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 609 .) 26 Additionally, excluding this evidence did not deprive appellants of their ability to use Alvarado’s statements during the undercover operation to argue Eduardo and Ruben tried to rob them.

2021Prior appellate court decisions in a case are typically viewed as part of the record of conviction—and typically sidestep the hearsay rule—because they merely “reflect[] what is in the trial record.” (Woodell, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 456 .) But what if a decision got the trial record wrong?

2020(People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 , 1134, 1138, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598; accord People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320 , 328, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493; People v. Law (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 811 , 820-821, review granted July 8, 2020, S262490; People v. Gomez (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1 , 10; People v. Galvan (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1134 .) Second, the court in People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448 held that “the appellate opinion itself, representing the action of a court, clearly comes within the exception to the hearsay rule for official records.” (Id. at

2022Applicable Law Pursuant to Evidence Code section 1221, “[e]vidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth.” The statute “contemplates either explicit acceptance of another’s statement or acquiescence in its truth by silence or equivocal or evasive conduct.” (People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821, 843 .) Under this provision, “ ‘If a person is accused of having committed a crime, under 19.

2021Applicable Law Pursuant to Evidence Code section 1221, “[e]vidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth.” The statute “contemplates either explicit acceptance of another’s statement or acquiescence in its truth by silence or equivocal or evasive conduct.” (People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821, 843 .) Under this provision, “ ‘If a person is accused of having committed a crime, under cir