res gestae rule in California

12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1937–1986 0 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Linesgreen cal · 1945 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1946–1959 2 sentences 1959(People v. Costa, 40 Cal.2d 160, 168 [ 252 P.2d 1 ]; Dillon v. Wallace, 148 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [5] [ 306 P.2d 1044 ]; People v. Haag, 127 Cal.App.2d 93, 101 [5] [ 273 P.2d 328 ].) In Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ], the trial court’s ruling, which was corrected by the Supreme Court, was not based on its own discretionary judgment as to whether or not the facts before it warranted the application of the res gestae principle to the statement, but was based on an entirely different ground, to wit, that a statement of an employee about the cause of an accident 1959(People v. Costa, 40 Cal.2d 160, 168 [ 252 P.2d 1 ]; Dillon v. Wallace, 148 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [5] [ 306 P.2d 1044 ]; People v. Haag, 127 Cal.App.2d 93, 101 [5] [ 273 P.2d 328 ].) In Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ], the trial court’s ruling, which was corrected by the Supreme Court, was not based on its own discretionary judgment as to whether or not the facts before it warranted the application of the res gestae principle to the statement, but was based on an entirely different ground, to wit, that a statement of an employee about the cause of an accident	3	3
People v. Washingtongreen cal · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986(Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) The Hearsay Rule, § 544, p. 517.) As Witkin notes, California has now adopted Wigmore’s terminology in place of res gestae and “statements coming under this exception are properly described as ‘spontaneous exclamations,’ ‘spontaneous declarations,’ or ‘spontaneous statements.’” (Witkin, op. cit. supra, at p. 517.) In People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1170, 1176 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 5 , 459 P.2d 259 ], the Supreme Court observed that Evidence Code section 1240 “codified an existing exception to the hearsay rule (Law Revision Commission Comment to § 1240), whic	1	1
Menefee v. Williamsgreen calctapp · 1968 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979(Menefee v. Williams (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 56, 62 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 108 ].) Here, defendant raised the issue of diminished capacity. 1979(Menefee v. Williams (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 56, 62 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 108 ].) Here, defendant raised the issue of diminished capacity.	1	1
People v. Bazauregreen calctapp · 1965 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1967–1967 2 sentences 1967(Cf. People v. Basaure, 235 Cal.App.2d 21, 37-38 [ 44 Cal. Rptr. 831 ] : see Evid. 1967(Cf. People v. Basaure, 235 Cal.App.2d 21, 37-38 [ 44 Cal. Rptr. 831 ] : see Evid.	1	1
Dolberg v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.green calctapp · 1954 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963 2 sentences 1963Co. (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 487, 489 [ 272 P.2d 527 ].) Generally speaking it is the function of the trial judge to consider and decide whether all of the elements essential to the application of the res gestae rule are present. 1963Co. (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 487, 489 [ 272 P.2d 527 ].) Generally speaking it is the function of the trial judge to consider and decide whether all of the elements essential to the application of the res gestae rule are present.	1	1
People v. Haaggreen calctapp · 1954 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959 2 sentences 1959(People v. Costa, 40 Cal.2d 160, 168 [ 252 P.2d 1 ]; Dillon v. Wallace, 148 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [5] [ 306 P.2d 1044 ]; People v. Haag, 127 Cal.App.2d 93, 101 [5] [ 273 P.2d 328 ].) In Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ], the trial court’s ruling, which was corrected by the Supreme Court, was not based on its own discretionary judgment as to whether or not the facts before it warranted the application of the res gestae principle to the statement, but was based on an entirely different ground, to wit, that a statement of an employee about the cause of an accident 1959(People v. Costa, 40 Cal.2d 160, 168 [ 252 P.2d 1 ]; Dillon v. Wallace, 148 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [5] [ 306 P.2d 1044 ]; People v. Haag, 127 Cal.App.2d 93, 101 [5] [ 273 P.2d 328 ].) In Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ], the trial court’s ruling, which was corrected by the Supreme Court, was not based on its own discretionary judgment as to whether or not the facts before it warranted the application of the res gestae principle to the statement, but was based on an entirely different ground, to wit, that a statement of an employee about the cause of an accident	1	1
Dillon v. Wallacegreen calctapp · 1957 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959 2 sentences 1959(People v. Costa, 40 Cal.2d 160, 168 [ 252 P.2d 1 ]; Dillon v. Wallace, 148 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [5] [ 306 P.2d 1044 ]; People v. Haag, 127 Cal.App.2d 93, 101 [5] [ 273 P.2d 328 ].) In Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ], the trial court’s ruling, which was corrected by the Supreme Court, was not based on its own discretionary judgment as to whether or not the facts before it warranted the application of the res gestae principle to the statement, but was based on an entirely different ground, to wit, that a statement of an employee about the cause of an accident 1959(People v. Costa, 40 Cal.2d 160, 168 [ 252 P.2d 1 ]; Dillon v. Wallace, 148 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [5] [ 306 P.2d 1044 ]; People v. Haag, 127 Cal.App.2d 93, 101 [5] [ 273 P.2d 328 ].) In Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ], the trial court’s ruling, which was corrected by the Supreme Court, was not based on its own discretionary judgment as to whether or not the facts before it warranted the application of the res gestae principle to the statement, but was based on an entirely different ground, to wit, that a statement of an employee about the cause of an accident	1	1
People v. Costagreen cal · 1953 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959 1 sentence 1959(People v. Costa, 40 Cal.2d 160, 168 [ 252 P.2d 1 ]; Dillon v. Wallace, 148 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [5] [ 306 P.2d 1044 ]; People v. Haag, 127 Cal.App.2d 93, 101 [5] [ 273 P.2d 328 ].) In Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ], the trial court’s ruling, which was corrected by the Supreme Court, was not based on its own discretionary judgment as to whether or not the facts before it warranted the application of the res gestae principle to the statement, but was based on an entirely different ground, to wit, that a statement of an employee about the cause of an accident	1	1
People v. Vernongreen cal · 1868 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1953–1953 2 sentences 1953The situation of itself satisfied the requirements of the res gestae rule. “ Declarations to be a part of the res gestae, are not required to be precisely concurrent in point of time with the principal fact, if they spring out of the principal transaction, if they tend to explain it, are voluntary and spontaneous, and are made at a time so near it as to preclude the idea of deliberate design, then they are to be regarded as contemporaneous, and are admissible.” (People v. Vernon, 35 Cal. 49, 51 [95 Am.Dec. 49]; Code Civ. 1953The situation of itself satisfied the requirements of the res gestae rule. [8] "Declarations to be a part of the res gestae, are not required to be precisely concurrent in point of time with the principal fact, if they spring out of the principal transaction, if they tend to explain it, are voluntary and spontaneous, and are made at a time so near it as to preclude the idea of deliberate design, then they are to be regarded as contemporaneous, and are admissible." (People v. Vernon, 35 Cal. 49, 51 [95 Am.Dec. 49]; Code Civ.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Washington green cal · 1969 2 sentences 1986(Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) The Hearsay Rule, § 544, p. 517.) As Witkin notes, California has now adopted Wigmore’s terminology in place of res gestae and “statements coming under this exception are properly described as ‘spontaneous exclamations,’ ‘spontaneous declarations,’ or ‘spontaneous statements.’” (Witkin, op. cit. supra, at p. 517.) In People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1170, 1176 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 5 , 459 P.2d 259 ], the Supreme Court observed that Evidence Code section 1240 “codified an existing exception to the hearsay rule (Law Revision Commission Comment to § 1240), whic 1986(Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) The Hearsay Rule, § 544, p. 517.) As Witkin notes, California has now adopted Wigmore’s terminology in place of res gestae and “statements coming under this exception are properly described as ‘spontaneous exclamations,’ ‘spontaneous declarations,’ or ‘spontaneous statements.’” (Witkin, op. cit. supra, at p. 517.) In People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1170, 1176 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 5 , 459 P.2d 259 ], the Supreme Court observed that Evidence Code section 1240 “codified an existing exception to the hearsay rule (Law Revision Commission Comment to § 1240), whic	1	1986–1986
Showalter v. Western Pacific Railroad green cal · 1940 2 sentences 1984Co. (1940) 16 Cal.2d 460 [ 106 P.2d 895 ], this statute is a codification of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. 1984Co. (1940) 16 Cal.2d 460 [ 106 P.2d 895 ], this statute is a codification of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.	1	1984–1984
People v. Perkins green cal · 1937 2 sentences 1959Proc., §§ 1850, 1870, subd. 7; People v. Perkins, 8 Cal.2d 502 [ 66 P.2d 631 ]), so that we can say that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding these statements. 1959Proc., §§ 1850, 1870, subd. 7; People v. Perkins, 8 Cal.2d 502 [ 66 P.2d 631 ]), so that we can say that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding these statements.	1	1959–1959
Cole v. Rush green cal · 1953 1 sentence 1959(People v. Costa, 40 Cal.2d 160, 168 [ 252 P.2d 1 ]; Dillon v. Wallace, 148 Cal.App.2d 447, 451 [5] [ 306 P.2d 1044 ]; People v. Haag, 127 Cal.App.2d 93, 101 [5] [ 273 P.2d 328 ].) In Lane v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 26 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 160 P.2d 21 ], the trial court’s ruling, which was corrected by the Supreme Court, was not based on its own discretionary judgment as to whether or not the facts before it warranted the application of the res gestae principle to the statement, but was based on an entirely different ground, to wit, that a statement of an employee about the cause of an accident	1	1959–1959
People v. Clough green cal · 1881 1 sentence 1959(People v. Clough, 59 Cal. 438 ; People v. Louie Foo, 112 Cal. 17 [ 44 P. 453 ].) Nor was there a sufficient showing *116 that the statements made by Jody Woods came within the res gestae rule (Code Civ.	1	1959–1959
People v. Foo green cal · 1896 2 sentences 1959(People v. Clough, 59 Cal. 438 ; People v. Louie Foo, 112 Cal. 17 [ 44 P. 453 ].) Nor was there a sufficient showing 116 that the statements made by Jody Woods came within the res gestae rule (Code Civ. 1959(People v. Clough, 59 Cal. 438 ; People v. Louie Foo, 112 Cal. 17 [ 44 P. 453 ].) Nor was there a sufficient showing 116 that the statements made by Jody Woods came within the res gestae rule (Code Civ.	1	1959–1959
People v. Jennings green calctapp · 1956 2 sentences 1957In People v. Jennings, 142 Cal.App.2d 160 [ 298 P.2d 56 ], cited by the defendant, the hack saw was excluded because the court found that under the circumstances in that case the officers had plenty of time to obtain a search warrant. [29] Although the admission of the knife here as a part of the res gestae was error, it cannot be said to have resulted in a "miscarriage of justice" within the meaning of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the State Constitution. 1957In People v. Jennings, 142 Cal.App.2d 160 [ 298 P.2d 56 ], cited by the defendant, the hack saw was excluded because the court found that under the circumstances in that case the officers had plenty of time to obtain a search warrant. [29] Although the admission of the knife here as a part of the res gestae was error, it cannot be said to have resulted in a "miscarriage of justice" within the meaning of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the State Constitution.	1	1957–1957
People v. Borbon green calctapp · 1956 2 sentences 1957In People v. Borbon, 146 Cal.App.2d 315 [ 303 P.2d 560 ], cited by the defendant, the evidence the court rejected was photostats made from the documents obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. (10) That the district attorney was guilty of misconduct in 136 offering the knife in evidence and making certain comments to the jury. 1957In People v. Borbon, 146 Cal.App.2d 315 [ 303 P.2d 560 ], cited by the defendant, the evidence the court rejected was photostats made from the documents obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. (10) That the district attorney was guilty of misconduct in 136 offering the knife in evidence and making certain comments to the jury.	1	1957–1957
People v. Dabb green cal · 1948 2 sentences 1954(See People v. Dabb, 32 Cal.2d 491 [ 197 P.2d 1 ].) Nor does the statement fall within the res gestae rule which requires that it be the natural and spontaneous outgrowth of the act, and not the mere relation of a past transaction. 1954(See People v. Dabb, 32 Cal.2d 491 [ 197 P.2d 1 ].) Nor does the statement fall within the res gestae rule which requires that it be the natural and spontaneous outgrowth of the act, and not the mere relation of a past transaction.	1	1954–1954
People v. O'Donnell (1938) green cal · 1938 2 sentences 1954(People v. O’Donnell, 11 Cal.2d 666 [ 81 P.2d 939 ]; People v. Brown, 15 Cal.App. 393 [ 114 P. 1004 ].) Nor was it admissible under the rule of section 1854, Code of Civil Procedure, that when part of a conversation is admitted the opposite party may have the entire conversation admitted. 1954(People v. O’Donnell, 11 Cal.2d 666 [ 81 P.2d 939 ]; People v. Brown, 15 Cal.App. 393 [ 114 P. 1004 ].) Nor was it admissible under the rule of section 1854, Code of Civil Procedure, that when part of a conversation is admitted the opposite party may have the entire conversation admitted.	1	1954–1954
People v. Brown neutral calctapp · 1911 2 sentences 1954(People v. O’Donnell, 11 Cal.2d 666 [ 81 P.2d 939 ]; People v. Brown, 15 Cal.App. 393 [ 114 P. 1004 ].) Nor was it admissible under the rule of section 1854, Code of Civil Procedure, that when part of a conversation is admitted the opposite party may have the entire conversation admitted. 1954(People v. O’Donnell, 11 Cal.2d 666 [ 81 P.2d 939 ]; People v. Brown, 15 Cal.App. 393 [ 114 P. 1004 ].) Nor was it admissible under the rule of section 1854, Code of Civil Procedure, that when part of a conversation is admitted the opposite party may have the entire conversation admitted.	1	1954–1954
People v. Westcott green calctapp · 1927 2 sentences 1937(People v. Hinshaw, 194 Cal. 1 [ 227 P. 156 ]; People v. Anderson, 120 Cal.App. 5 [7 PaCal.2d 202]; People v. Westcott, 86 Cal.App. 298 [ 260 P. 901 ].) No further citation of authorities is necessary for the support of the well-recognized principle of law that self-serving declarations and hearsay evidence cannot be invoked to displace or destroy the efficacious and proper application of the res gestae doctrine. [14] We think there is no substantial merit in the complaint that the exclusion of evidence to the effect that the defendant was promised a job of work in the immediate future was imp 1937(People v. Hinshaw, 194 Cal. 1 [ 227 P. 156 ]; People v. Anderson, 120 Cal.App. 5 [7 PaCal.2d 202]; People v. Westcott, 86 Cal.App. 298 [ 260 P. 901 ].) No further citation of authorities is necessary for the support of the well-recognized principle of law that self-serving declarations and hearsay evidence cannot be invoked to displace or destroy the efficacious and proper application of the res gestae doctrine. [14] We think there is no substantial merit in the complaint that the exclusion of evidence to the effect that the defendant was promised a job of work in the immediate future was imp	1	1937–1937
People v. Dad green calctapp · 1921 2 sentences 1937Defendant contends that the evidence was admissible under the res gestae rule. 'The rule (res gestae) is familiar and permits 514 the declarations of the defendant to be shown where they are so closely connected with the main event as to appear wholly unpremeditated and spontaneous.' (People v. Dad, 51 Cal.App. 182 [ 196 P. 506 ].) It may be stated that where it is the event speaking through the person and not the person telling about the event, that such declarations are part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence. 1937Defendant contends that the evidence was admissible under the res gestae rule. 'The rule (res gestae) is familiar and permits 514 the declarations of the defendant to be shown where they are so closely connected with the main event as to appear wholly unpremeditated and spontaneous.' (People v. Dad, 51 Cal.App. 182 [ 196 P. 506 ].) It may be stated that where it is the event speaking through the person and not the person telling about the event, that such declarations are part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence.	1	1937–1937
People v. Anderson green calctapp · 1932 2 sentences 1937(People v. Hinshaw, 194 Cal. 1 [ 227 Pac. 156 ]; People v. Anderson, 120 Cal. App. 5 [ 7 Pac. (2d) 202 ]; People v. Westcott, 86 Cal. App. 298 [ 260 Pac. 901 ].) No further citation of authorities is necessary for the support of the well-recognized principle of law that self-serving declarations and hearsay evidence cannot be invoked to displace or destroy the efficacious and proper application of the res gestae doctrine. 1937(People v. Hinshaw, 194 Cal. 1 [ 227 P. 156 ]; People v. Anderson, 120 Cal.App. 5 [7 PaCal.2d 202]; People v. Westcott, 86 Cal.App. 298 [ 260 P. 901 ].) No further citation of authorities is necessary for the support of the well-recognized principle of law that self-serving declarations and hearsay evidence cannot be invoked to displace or destroy the efficacious and proper application of the res gestae doctrine. [14] We think there is no substantial merit in the complaint that the exclusion of evidence to the effect that the defendant was promised a job of work in the immediate future was imp	1	1937–1937
People v. Hinshaw green cal · 1924 2 sentences 1937(People v. Hinshaw, 194 Cal. 1 [ 227 P. 156 ]; People v. Anderson, 120 Cal.App. 5 [7 PaCal.2d 202]; People v. Westcott, 86 Cal.App. 298 [ 260 P. 901 ].) No further citation of authorities is necessary for the support of the well-recognized principle of law that self-serving declarations and hearsay evidence cannot be invoked to displace or destroy the efficacious and proper application of the res gestae doctrine. [14] We think there is no substantial merit in the complaint that the exclusion of evidence to the effect that the defendant was promised a job of work in the immediate future was imp 1937(People v. Hinshaw, 194 Cal. 1 [ 227 P. 156 ]; People v. Anderson, 120 Cal.App. 5 [7 PaCal.2d 202]; People v. Westcott, 86 Cal.App. 298 [ 260 P. 901 ].) No further citation of authorities is necessary for the support of the well-recognized principle of law that self-serving declarations and hearsay evidence cannot be invoked to displace or destroy the efficacious and proper application of the res gestae doctrine. [14] We think there is no substantial merit in the complaint that the exclusion of evidence to the effect that the defendant was promised a job of work in the immediate future was imp	1	1937–1937

Where else courts name it

PA 231 (1925–2026) LA 177 (1956–2025) GA 107 (1957–2017) TX 78 (1923–2020) WA 68 (1926–2026) MI 51 (1948–2020) IN 49 (1958–2023) MO 47 (1930–2025) CO 40 (1954–2026) AL 34 (1916–2026) OK 28 (1967–2022) SC 25 (1930–2021) IA 24 (1911–1995) VA 23 (1922–2025) IL 21 (1926–2014) AR 20 (1976–2026) FL 14 (1966–2008) MN 13 (1922–2015) NC 12 (1962–2007) CA 12 (1937–1986) KY 12 (1909–1985) OH 12 (1944–2006) MD 11 (1969–2011) WV 11 (1878–2020) MT 11 (1938–2001) NJ 11 (1952–2021) KS 10 (1979–2017) NY 10 (1893–2003) UT 10 (1903–2025) ID 10 (1894–2024) AZ 9 (1923–1975) SD 9 (1968–2017) NM 9 (1939–2010) WI 7 (1968–1989) TN 7 (1939–2014) NV 6 (1980–2026) VT 5 (1935–1987) MS 4 (1934–2005) HI 4 (1982–2008) OR 4 (1957–2024) ME 3 (1923–1972) DC 2 (1945–2004) MA 2 (1955–1983) NH 2 (1977–1981) WY 2 (1941–1992)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check