spontaneous utterance exception in California

2015(People v. Farmer, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 904-905.) The case cited by defendant, People v. Miron (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 580 , is not applicable because it involved the interplay of the spontaneous utterance exception and the lay opinion rule.

2013When and where did it happen?) are routine, nonsuggestive inquiries that do not bar application of the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule. 16 (People v. Saracoglu, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1590 ; see also People v. Farmer, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 904 [“The fact that a statement is made in response to questioning is one factor suggesting the answer may be the product of deliberation, but it does not ipso facto deprive the statement of spontaneity”].) An answer to a simple inquiry may be spontaneous.

2005Evidence Code section 1240 provides: “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [f] (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.” In a multiple, nested hearsay situation as here, the multiple hearsay is admissible only “if each hearsay layer separately meets the requirements of a hearsay exception.” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 149 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 , 913 P.2d 980

2005Evidence Code section 1240 provides: “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement: [f] (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.” In a multiple, nested hearsay situation as here, the multiple hearsay is admissible only “if each hearsay layer separately meets the requirements of a hearsay exception.” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 149 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 , 913 P.2d 980

2005(People v. Phillips (2000) 22 Cal.4th 226, 236 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 , 991 P.2d 145 ].) That all three people involved—Judy Adams, her son Rod Adams, and Leticia Calderon—were operating under the stress and excitement of the robbery when the tape was made is not questioned.

2005(People v. Phillips (2000) 22 Cal.4th 226, 236 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 58 , 991 P.2d 145 ].) That all three people involved—Judy Adams, her son Rod Adams, and Leticia Calderon—were operating under the stress and excitement of the robbery when the tape was made is not questioned.