party admission exception in California

2025Section 1220 provides an exception to the hearsay rule for evidence of a statement that is “offered against the declarant in an action to which he is a party . . . .” Here, “defendant was the declarant, the statement[ was] offered against him, and he was a party to the action.” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1049 .) Turning to Phillip’s statement (“He told my mom that he killed his father”), this was also offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that defendant confessed to killing his father.

2021Accordingly, the hearsay rule does not make the statements inadmissible.” (People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1049 .) We conclude that all the challenged statements were admissible: Exhibit 16.

2022It is axiomatic that we review the trial court’s rulings and not its reasoning.” (People v. Mason (1991) 52 Cal.3d 909, 944 .) The portions of the preliminary hearing transcript in which the police officer related appellant’s own statements to the police are admissible under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule.

2021(Citing Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 20 Cal.App.3d 284 , 290–291; Mattson v. Schultz (7th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 937, 940 ; see also Evid.

2021(Citing Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 20 Cal.App.3d 284 , 290–291; Mattson v. Schultz (7th Cir. 1998) 145 F.3d 937, 940 ; see also Evid.

2021(People v. Burroughs, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 410-411.) Another hearsay exception is relevant here, the exception for statements made by a party opponent (we refer to this as the party admission exception), codified at Evidence Code section 1220.

2020The parties focus on another, related exception to the hearsay rule, the 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 . . . so far subjected him to the risk of civil or criminal liability . . . that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.” (Id., § 1230.) “The proponent of such evidence must show that the declarant is unavailable, that th

2020The parties focus on another, related exception to the hearsay rule, the 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 . . . so far subjected him to the risk of civil or criminal liability . . . that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.” (Id., § 1230.) “The proponent of such evidence must show that the declarant is unavailable, that th

2015Citing People v. Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th 1183 , defendant argues that the property manager’s statement cannot constitute a prior inconsistent statement because a witness’s statement that he or she does not remember an event is not inconsistent with that witness’s prior statement describing that event.

2010(California Securities Co. v. Grosse, supra, 3 Cal.2d at p. 733; Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 ; Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 15 Cal.App.3d at p. 121 ; Stafford v. Clinard, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d at p. 481 .) In Karlsen , the court also held that a purported oral agreement to postpone a foreclosure sale was not enforceable by the borrower because it was not supported by consideration.

2010(California Securities Co. v. Grosse, supra, 3 Cal.2d at p. 733; Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 ; Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 15 Cal.App.3d at p. 121 ; Stafford v. Clinard, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d at p. 481 .) In Karlsen , the court also held that a purported oral agreement to postpone a foreclosure sale was not enforceable by the borrower because it was not supported by consideration.

2010(California Securities Co. v. Grosse, supra, 3 Cal.2d at p. 733; Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 ; Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 15 Cal.App.3d at p. 121 ; Stafford v. Clinard, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d at p. 481 .) In Karlsen , the court also held that a purported oral agreement to postpone a foreclosure sale was not enforceable by the borrower because it was not supported by consideration.

1997Goodner agreed with precedent holding “that it is proper to use a defendant’s statements contained in a probation report to determine the nature of a prior conviction under Evidence Code section 1220, the party admission exception to the hearsay rule.” ( 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 615 .) We recognize that Reed has subsequently questioned the reasoning of Goodner .