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.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2022 2 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. Corellagreen2 sentences2013We note, however, that—while the analyses are separate and whether a statement is admissible hearsay under state law does not mean it is admissible as a nontestimonial statement under the rule established in Crawford and Davis—“there is some overlap between the spontaneous statement hearsay exception under [Evidence Code] section 1240 and the nontestimonial nature of spontaneous statements under Crawford and Davis.” (People v. Banos (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 483, 493-494 , fns. 2, 3 (Banos), citing People v. Pedroza (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 784 , 792- 794 [it is “ ‘ “difficult to identify any circu 2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 | 3 | 4 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 | 3 | 3 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 | 2 | 2 |
White v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 2006(See Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ; see also People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 467 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 .) Under Roberts , admission of a hearsay statement does not violate the confrontation clause if the statement "bears adequate `indicia of reliability'"; that is, if it either "falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception" or is cloaked with "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." ( Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 .) The spontaneous statement hearsay exception is firmly rooted. ( White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 355, fn. 8 | 1 | 3 |
People v. Pedrozagreen2 sentences2013We note, however, that—while the analyses are separate and whether a statement is admissible hearsay under state law does not mean it is admissible as a nontestimonial statement under the rule established in Crawford and Davis—“there is some overlap between the spontaneous statement hearsay exception under [Evidence Code] section 1240 and the nontestimonial nature of spontaneous statements under Crawford and Davis.” (People v. Banos (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 483, 493-494 , fns. 2, 3 (Banos), citing People v. Pedroza (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 784 , 792- 794 [it is “ ‘ “difficult to identify any circu 2009(See People v. Pedroza (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 784, 792-794 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 636 ] [“ ‘difficult to identify any circumstances’ ” under which a spontaneous statement would be testimonial]; People v. Corella (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 461, 469 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ].) 3 The fact that a statement is not testimonial and therefore is admissible under Crawford does not mean it is necessarily admissible under applicable state evidentiary rules. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Raleyred1 sentence2022(See People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 541 [two and one-half hours]; People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 893-894 [18 hours]; In re Emilye A. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1695, 1713 [one to two days]”]; see also Poggi, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 319-320 [30 minutes].) As well, it would be quite reasonable to conclude that the officers—arriving three to five minutes after a dispatch triggered by 911 calls—actually arrived well before the 20-minute mark where Peete saw them. | 1 | 1 |
San Bernardino County Department of Public Social Services v. Ebrahim A.green1 sentence2022(See People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 541 [two and one-half hours]; People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 893-894 [18 hours]; In re Emilye A. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1695, 1713 [one to two days]”]; see also Poggi, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 319-320 [30 minutes].) As well, it would be quite reasonable to conclude that the officers—arriving three to five minutes after a dispatch triggered by 911 calls—actually arrived well before the 20-minute mark where Peete saw them. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Poggigreen1 sentence2022(See People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 541 [two and one-half hours]; People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 893-894 [18 hours]; In re Emilye A. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1695, 1713 [one to two days]”]; see also Poggi, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 319-320 [30 minutes].) As well, it would be quite reasonable to conclude that the officers—arriving three to five minutes after a dispatch triggered by 911 calls—actually arrived well before the 20-minute mark where Peete saw them. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hinesgreen1 sentence2016(People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1034, fn. 4 .) Here, Yazzie's trial counsel made no attempt to alert the trial court to the legal grounds upon Yazzie now seeks to justify admission of the proffered testimony, or to establish the necessary foundation for the spontaneous statement hearsay exception. | 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. Washington
green
1 sentence2022Courts have repeatedly held that the lapse of time between the event and the declarations will not deprive the statements of spontaneity if “it nevertheless appears that they were made under the stress of excitement and while the 11 reflective powers were still in abeyance.” (People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1170, 1176 .) Also, as the People point out, much longer periods of time have been found not to preclude application of the spontaneous statement hearsay exception. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2021As stated, to qualify as a spontaneous statement, the statement must have been made “ ‘ “before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance.” ’ ” (Thomas, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 495 .) Given that when Richard made the statement to Isaac, Richard had been able to gather his “ ‘ “reflective powers” ’ ” enough to realize that the Jeep should be cleaned, it seems that there was “ ‘ “time to contrive and misrepresent.” ’ ” (Ibid.) While the Attorney General argues that Isaac’s | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Hardy
green
1 sentence2021Thus, evidence that James 49 “ ‘ “was participating or would later participate in the conspiracy” ’ ” to obstruct justice was lacking.11 (Hardy, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 996 .) Nor does it appear that the foundational requirements of the spontaneous statement hearsay exception were established. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence2016Second, citing Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284 (Chambers), Yazzie contends the exclusion of the hearsay evidence violated his due process right to a fair trial. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Ledesma
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 217-218 .) "'A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.'" (Id. at p. 218.) Any failure of Yazzie's trial attorney in not urging the court to overrule the hearsay objection under the spontaneous statement hearsay exception was harmless. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Banos
green
1 sentence2013We note, however, that—while the analyses are separate and whether a statement is admissible hearsay under state law does not mean it is admissible as a nontestimonial statement under the rule established in Crawford and Davis—“there is some overlap between the spontaneous statement hearsay exception under [Evidence Code] section 1240 and the nontestimonial nature of spontaneous statements under Crawford and Davis.” (People v. Banos (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 483, 493-494 , fns. 2, 3 (Banos), citing People v. Pedroza (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 784 , 792- 794 [it is “ ‘ “difficult to identify any circu | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Williams v. Illinois
red
1 sentence2013Applicable Legal Principles In Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36 , the United States Supreme Court held that “ ‘[t]estimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial [can be] admitted only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.’ ” (Williams v. Illinois (2012) 567 U.S. ___ [ 183 L.Ed.2d 89, 103 ], quoting Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 59 [ 158 L.Ed.2d at p. 197 ].) The victim here did not testify at trial or at the preliminary hearing and defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine her. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Orduno
green
2 sentences1992(See also People v. Orduno (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 738 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 806 ] to the same effect.) This exception as provided in Evidence Code section 1240 is a firmly rooted hearsay exception surrounded by indicia of reliability. 1992(See also People v. Orduno (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 738 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 806 ] to the same effect.) This exception as provided in Evidence Code section 1240 is a firmly rooted hearsay exception surrounded by indicia of reliability. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.