California Distinctions Flashcards
Excluding evidence California Distinction:
Same as fed EXCEPT PROP 8 makes ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE in crim cases.
Exceptions to prop 8:
hearsay law, privilege law, limits on character evidence to prove D’s conduct, limits on character evidence to prove V’s conduct, Secondary evidence rule AND court’s ability to weigh prejudice vs. probative value
Relevance in CA:
Same except FACT OF CONSEQUENCE MUST ALSO BE IN DISPUTE
Subsequent remedial measures difference:
CA does not apply to product liability cases
Settlement offers:
applies to mediation discussions
Offers to pay med expenses:
any admissions within the whole statement are inadmissible (I’ll pay your hospital bill, shouldn’t have left banana peel there), Fed only hospital bill excluded, CA whole statement excluded)
Prior acts of child molestation/sexual assault to prove conduct in this case
In CA you can’t bring in evidence of prior acts of sexual assault to prove how they acted in this case
Past acts difference b/w fed and CA:
Fed: when D shows victim’s character trait, Prosecution can bring evidence of D’s SAME character trait.
CA: for crime of Domestic Violence, elder abuse, prosecution can bring evidence that D committed other acts of DV and elder abuse.
CA: When D brings evidence of victim’s VIOLENT character, prosecution can show D’s VIOLENT character (narrower than fed above)
Witness competence differences:
CA: Witness must also understand legal duty to tell the truth
Learned Treatises:
California can ONLY show to use matters of general notoriety or interest (very narrow, never applicable)
Prior inconsistent statements of witnesses:
CA all prior inconsistent statements of witnesses are admissible whether or not under oath.
Prior felonies
CA: all felonies involving moral turpitude, no moral turpitude=not admitted. Still balance though. (negligence/unintentional acts does not equal moral turpitude)
Prior misdemeanors
inadmissible unless crime of moral turpitude under prop 8 crim case (CAN’T ADMIT IN CIVIL CASE TO IMPEACH IN CA)
Prior convictions time limit
10 years or older usually fed courts say inadmissible BUT NO RULE IN CA but still balance probative/prejudice
Non-conviction misconduct bearing on truthfulness:
Fed: admissible if asked in good faith (no extrinsic evidence) CA: inadmissible unless in crim case it’s relevant (moral turpitude)
Admission of party opponent:
CA: nonhearsay, CA hearsay but exception.
Prior inconsistent statement of witness:
Not hearsay if used to impeach, if used to prove: Fed=only if given under oath. CA: Hearsay BUT allowed b/c all prior inconsistent statements are allowed in
Declaration against interest:
CA includes statements against social interests. Must know it was against interest at time of making it
Former testimony:
Fed: admissible if there’s privity-type relationship b/w past party and this one. CA: only if interests are similar. CA: Depo testimony in same civil action admissible if deponent is unavailable at trial or lives 150 miles away.
Dying Declaration exception:
Fed: believes he’s about to die, describes circumstances leading to death allowed in CIVIL and HOMICIDE PROSECUTION if declarant unavailable.
CA: ALL CIVIL/CRIM CASES and MUST BE DEAD
Present sense impression:
CA: can only be used when describing the declarant’s actions as he’s doing them
OR CA: description of a threat made to police/medical professional as it is happening
past/present mental/physical condition made for diagnosis/treatment:
CA: ONLY IF declarant is minor and describing act of child abuse/neglect
Public records exception:
Fed: Not admissible in crim cases CA: can be used by prosecution BUT confrontation clause may be an issue
Ancient docs:
Fed: 20 years old it is allowed in so long as no irregularities, found in place of natural custody, authenticity is established. CA it is 30 years
