Evidence CA: Hearsay Flashcards
HEARSAY EXCLUSIONS VS. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS
While federal law excludes certain statements from the definition of hearsay and also recognizes exceptions to the rule making hearsay inadmissible, California law only contains hearsay exceptions. In other words, there are no hearsay exclusions in California. However, with respect to the federal hearsay exclusions, you’ll see that California generally categorizes the same statements as hearsay exceptions.
There are no hearsay ____ in California.
There are no hearsay exclusions in California.
Admissions of Party-Opponent (Statements by or Attributable to Opposing Party)
Called what in CA?
Under federal and California law, the definition of these statements is the same. A statement by a party, or by someone whose statement is attributable to the party, is admissible when offered against that party.
Certain statements of other people (such as an authorized spokesperson or co-conspirator) are admissible against the party as a vicarious statement because of the relationship between them.
Under the Federal Rules, an opposing party’s statement is excluded from the definition of hearsay; in other words, it is not hearsay under Federal Rules.
In California, these statements are still called “admissions.” Admissions are considered hearsay in California, but are admissible under a hearsay exception.
Admissions of Party-Opponent: Vicarious Party Admissions—Agents and Employees
Under BOTH, a statement of a person authorized by a party to speak on its behalf is admissible against the party.
Distinction when it comes to the admissibility of other employee/agent statements:
- Federal Rules, a statement by a party’s agent or employee is admissible as an opposing party’s statement if the statement (1) concerned any matter within the scope of the agency or employment, and (2) was made during the existence of the agency or employment relationship.
- In California, there is no equivalent provision under the CEC. However, in civil cases, a statement by a party’s employee is considered an admission by the employer where the negligent conduct of the employee is the basis for the employer’s liability under respondeat superior. In other words, the employer is responsible for the employ- ee’s words only if they are also responsible in tort law because of that employee’s conduct.
Admissions of Party-Opponent: Vicarious Party Admissions—Agents and Employees - FEDERAL
- Federal Rules, a statement by a party’s agent or employee is admissible as an opposing party’s statement if the statement (1) concerned any matter within the scope of the agency or employment, and (2) was made during the existence of the agency or employment relationship.
Admissions of Party-Opponent: Vicarious Party Admissions—Agents and Employees - CALIFORNIA
Admissable as exception ONLY in CIVIL cases where emplkoyee’s negligent conduct is bases for employer’s liability under tort doctrine of respondeot superior (has to be parallel btwn tort liability). LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER IS BASED ON LIABILITY OF EMPLOYEE - so statement is attributed.
Other California Vicarious Admissions - California recognizes the following additional hearsay exceptions:
• In a wrongful death action, statements by the deceased are admissible against the plaintiff.
• In a parent’s action for their minor child’s injury, statements by the child are admissible against the parent.
• In a civil case where a party’s right or title to property is at issue and depends on whether a supposed predecessor in interest holds or previously held the right or title, statements made by the predecessor in interest during the time they were supposedly the holder of the right or title are admissible against the party.
• In an action against a decedent’s estate (usually a wills case), a statement made by the decedent is admissible against the estate, provided the statement (1) concerned a matter within the decedent’s personal knowledge, (2) was made after the decedent had recently perceived the matter, and (3) was made while the decedent’s recollection was clear.
Prior Statements of Testifying Witnesses
FED: under the Federal Rules, a witness’s prior inconsistent statements made under oath, prior statements of identification, and certain prior consistent statements are admissible as hearsay exclusions (that is, they are not hearsay).
CA: California recognizes similar hearsay exceptions:
Testifying Witness’s Prior Statement of Identification
FED: Under the Federal Rules, a statement of identification of a person as someone the witness perceived earlier is not hearsay (exclusion).
CA: statements of ID are categorized as an exception to the hearsay rule. The California exception imposes the following additional requirements:
• The identification must have been of a person who participated in a crime or other occurrence;
• The witness must have made the identification while their memory was fresh; and
• The witness must confirm in court that they made the identification and that it truly reflected their opinion at the time
Testifying Witness’s Prior Inconsistent Statement
*Remember, if offered only to impeach then no hearsay problem. BUT if offered for truth of the fact asserted in the statement, there is a hearsay problem…
FED: Under the Federal Rules, a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is excluded from the definition of hearsay if it was made under oath at a prior proceeding. Otherwise, a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is hearsay and inadmissible to prove the fact asserted (unless the statement falls within some other exclusion or hearsay exception).
CA: ADMISSABLE as EXCEPTION REGARDLESS of whether made under OATH. [California recognizes a hearsay exception for a witness’s prior inconsistent statement. This exception extends to all prior inconsistent statements of witnesses, regardless of whether they were made under oath.]
Testifying Witness’s Prior Consistent Statement
BOTH: Under federal and California law, a prior consistent statement that is admissible to rehabilitate a witness is also admissible as substantive evidence of the truth of its contents.
Under the Federal Rules, a witness’s prior consistent statement is not hearsay.
In California, it is categorized as a hearsay exception.
HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS REQUIRING UNAVAILABILITY
- Statements Against Interest.
- Former Testimony
- Dying Declarations
- Statement Offered Against Party Procuring Declarant’s Unavailability
- Other California Exceptions Requiring Unavailability: • Statements describing the infliction or threat of physical injury, • Statements of past physical or emotional condition or state of mind, when at issue in the case.
Grounds for Unavailability
BOTH: Federal and California law recognize most of the same grounds for unavailability: (1) death or physical or mental infirmity; (2) privilege; (3) refusal to testify despite a court order; and (4) absence and inability of the proponent to procure attendance by process or other reasonable means.
FED: Federal Rules, a declarant also is unavailable if their memory fails on the subject matter of their statement. California doesn’t recognize this ground, so a witness will be considered unavailable in this situation only if they suffer total memory loss (bc that would be a mental condition that prevents them from testifying).
CA: California courts have also held that fear of testifying can be considered a mental infirmity that prevents the declarant from testifying.
Grounds for Unavailability - Lack of memory on topic
Federal Rules, a declarant also is unavailable if their memory fails on the subject matter of their statement.
California doesn’t recognize this ground, so a witness will be considered unavailable in this situation only if they suffer total memory loss (like amnesia) (bc that would be a mental condition that prevents them from testifying).
Grounds for Unavailability - Fear of tesstifying
California courts have also held that fear of testifying can be considered a mental infirmity that prevents the declarant from testifying. NOT fed.
Statements Against Interest - FEDERAL
Federal Rules, a statement by an unavailable declarant [DECLARANT, not necessarily DEFENDANT] is admissible if, at the time it was made, it was against the declarant’s pecuniary (money), proprietary (property), or penal (criminal) interest. In a criminal case, if the statement would have subjected the declarant to criminal liability (for example, where the unavailable declarant’s statement was a confession to the crime), the proponent must offer corroborating circumstances showing that the declarant’s statement is trustworthy.
pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest.
pecuniary (money), proprietary (property), or penal (criminal) interest.
In a criminal case, if the statement would have subjected the declarant to criminal liability (for example, where the unavailable declarant’s statement was a confession to the crime)…
The proponent must offer corroborating circumstances showing that the declarant’s statement is trustworthy. ONLY in FED, NOT in CA.
Statements Against Interest - CALIFORNIA
The California exception is broader in 2 respects:
• It does not include the corroboration requirement for statements subjecting the declarant to criminal liability.
• It also applies to statements against the declarant’s social interest that would risk making the declarant an object of “hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community.”
Statements Against Interest - CALIFORNIA RUle statement
A statement by an unavailable declarant is admissible if, at the time it was made, it was against the declarant’s pecuniary (money), proprietary (property), penal (criminal), or SOCIAL interest.
Ca - Social interest
declarant’s social interest that would risk making the declarant an object of “hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community.”
Former Testimony
Federal Exception and California Difference: Under federal and California law, testimony given under oath at a trial, hearing, or deposition by a now-unavailable declarant is admis- sible if the party against whom the testimony is now being offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the declarant’s testimony at the prior proceeding by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
BUT, Different Standards for Identity of Parties: The “opportunity and similar motive” requirement means that generally, the party against whom the testimony is now being offered must have been a party in the former action. Where this party was not a party in the former action, such statements may still be admitted under the former testimony exception in civil cases, but federal and California law differ on what is required.
Former Testimony - FEDERAL
Under federal law, testimony given under oath at a trial, hearing, or deposition by a now-unavailable declarant is admis- sible if the party against whom the testimony is now being offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the declarant’s testimony at the prior proceeding by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
The “opportunity and similar motive” requirement means that generally, the party against whom the testimony is now being offered must have been a party in the former action. Where this party was not a party in the former action, such statements may still be admitted under the former testimony exception in civil cases.
Under the Federal Rules, in civil cases, if the party against whom the testimony is being offered was not a party in the former action, the statement is still admissible if that party’s predecessor in interest was a party in the former action.
In CA, if fromer testimony is being offered against a party who was not present in the first case, in CIVIL CASE
Okay if they are a predecessor in interest
“Predecessor in interest” refers to…
a person in a privity relation- ship with the party (examples would include grantor-grantee, testator-executor, or joint tenants).
Former Testimony - CALIFORNIA
Under California law, testimony given under oath at a trial, hearing, or deposition by a now-unavailable declarant is admis- sible if the party against whom the testimony is now being offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the declarant’s testimony at the prior proceeding by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
The “opportunity and similar motive” requirement means that generally, the party against whom the testimony is now being offered must have been a party in the former action. Where this party was not a party in the former action, such statements may still be admitted under the former testimony exception in civil cases.
California recognizes a similar loophole in civil cases but does not require the party in the former action to be the current party’s predecessor in interest. It is sufficient that the party in the prior action had a similar interest to that of the party against whom the former testimony is now being offered. In other words, the former testimony is admissible if the party in the former action had an opportunity to examine the declarant and an interest in conducting the examination that was similar to the interests of the party against whom the declarant’s testimony is now being offered.
In CA, in civil cases where parties who former testimony is offered against are different… [if fromer testimony is being offered against a party who was not present in the first case, in CIVIL CASE]
WHere parties in civil cases are different, CA does NOT require predecessor in interest relationship; ONLY “similar” interest required
What’s required for former testimony in CA if parties were different
“similar” interest required
Former testimony where the party was not present in the first case only works in…
A CIVIL action.
Additional Ground for Admissibility in California
Unavailable Declarant’s former testimony also admissible if being offered against party who offered it in prior proceeding.
California goes beyond the federal exception, and admits former testimony as an exception to the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable and the former testimony is being offered against a person who offered it in evidence on their own behalf at the prior proceeding, or against that person’s successor in interest. The “similar motive” requirement doesn’t apply in this situation.
Related California Law—Deposition Testimony in Same Civil Case
Under CA Civil Pro rules, ADMISSABLE for ALL purposes IF Declarant UNAVAIABLE OR Lives More than 150 miles from courthouse.
The California Rules of Civil Procedure (rather than the CEC) apply when the former testimony is from a deposition in the same civil case. The deposition testimony is admissible for all purposes if the deponent: (1) is unavailable to testify at trial, or (2) lives more than 150 miles from the courthouse.
Dying Declarations
FED: Under the Federal Rules, in a homicide prosecution or in any civil case, a statement made by a now-unavailable declarant is admissible if: (1) the declarant believed their death was imminent (they need not have died); and (2) the statement concerned the cause or circum- stances of what the declarant believed to be their impending death.
CA: The California exception is different in 2 important ways:
• The exception applies in all criminal and civil cases.
• The declarant must have died as a result of what happened.
Dying Declarations - FED
FED: Under the Federal Rules, in a homicide prosecution or in any civil case, a statement made by a now-unavailable declarant is admissible if: (1) the declarant believed their death was imminent (they need not have died); and (2) the statement concerned the cause or circum- stances of what the declarant believed to be their impending death.
FED: Dying Declarations only apply in…
in a homicide prosecution or in any civil case
Dying Declarations - CA
CA: In ALL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, a statement made by a now-unavailable declarant is admissible if: (1) The declarant must have died as a result of what happened, (2) the declarant believed their death was imminent (they need have died); and (3) the statement concerned the cause or circum- stances of what the declarant believed to be their impending death.
The California exception is different in 2 important ways:
• The exception applies in all criminal and civil cases.
• The declarant must have died as a result of what happened.
CA: Dying Declarations only apply in…
In ALL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES
Dying Delcarations: The California exception is different in 2 important ways:
• The exception applies in all criminal and civil cases.
• The declarant must have died as a result of what happened.
Statement Offered Against Party Procuring Declarant’s Unavailability
Under federal and California law, the statement of an unavailable declarant is admissible in any type of case when offered against a party who has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that intention- ally caused the declarant to be unavailable to testify.
California recognizes this exception, and specifically provides that the judge has discretion to exclude the statement if it appears untrustworthy.
Additional CA Exception - Statements of Kidnapped or murdered Declarant in CRIMINAL Cases
Statement Offered Against Party Procuring Declarant’s Unavailability - what is the Additional CA Exception?
Statements of Kidnapped or murdered Declarant in CRIMINAL Cases
Statement Offered Against Party Procuring Declarant’s Unavailability: Additional CA Exception - Statements of Kidnapped or murdered Declarant in CRIMINAL Cases
Statements of Kidnapped or murdered Declarant in ADMISSIBLe if:
- Prosecution for serious felony
- Unavailability caused or aided by Defendant
- For purposes of preventing D’s arrest or prosecution.
California Exception—Statements of Kidnapped or Murdered Declarant in Criminal Case
In a criminal prosecution for a serious felony, California recognizes a separate exception for statements of a kidnapped or murdered declarant whose unavailability was caused or aided by the defen- dant for the purpose of preventing the defendant’s arrest or prosecution (rather than preventing their testimony at trial).
However, for this exception to apply, various detailed requirements must be met (for example, the statement must have been memorialized by law enforcement in a tape recording or in a writing signed by the declarant, the statement must be corroborated by other evidence that implicates the defendant in the charged crime, and so on).
Other California Exceptions Requiring Unavailability (2 CA specific exceptions)
There are 2 more California-specific exceptions that require the declarant to be unavailable:
• Statements describing the infliction or threat of physical injury
• Statements of past physical or emotional condition or state of mind, when at issue in the case.
Closely related to other hearsay exceptions that don’t require the declarant to be unavailable.
HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS NOT REQUIRING UNAVAILABILITY
• Present Sense Impressions
- Related California Exception—Statement Describing Infliction or Threat of Physical Abuse
• Excited Utterances/Spontaneous Statements
• Statements of Present State of Mind or Condition
• Statements Made for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment
- Related California Exception—Past Condition or State of Mind When at Issue in Case
• Business Records
• Public Records Exception
• Felony Judgments
• Civil Judgments
• Additional California Exception—Statements by Child Abuse Victim in Criminal Case
Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: Present Sense Impressions
FED: Under the Federal Rules, a statement that describes or explains an event or condition, and is made while or immediately after the declarant perceives the event or condition, is admissible as a present sense impression.
CA: The California exception is much narrower. It applies only when a statement explains the declarant’s own conduct, and is made while the declarant was engaged in that conduct.
Present Sense Impressions - FED
FED: Under the Federal Rules, a statement that describes or explains an event or condition, and is made while or immediately after the declarant perceives the event or condition, is admissible as a present sense impression.
Present Sense Impressions - CA
CA: The California exception is much narrower. It applies only when a statement explains the declarant’s own conduct, and is made while the declarant was engaged in that conduct.
The California exception for Present Sense Impressions is much ____. It applies when a statement explains… and is made…
The California exception is much narrower. It applies only when a statement explains the declarant’s own conduct, and is made while the declarant was engaged in that conduct.
Present Sense Impressions: Related California Exception
Statement Describing Infliction or Threat of Physical Abuse
Present Sense Impressions: - Related California Exception—Statement Describing Infliction or Threat of Physical Abuse
In California, a statement made by an unavailable declarant that describes, narrates, or explains the infliction or threat of physical injury on the declarant is admissible IF the statement:
• Was made at or near the time of the infliction or threat;
• Was either (1) in writing, (2) recorded, or (3) made to a law enforce- ment official or medical personnel; and
• Was made under circumstances that indicate trustworthiness
Because this hearsay exception requires the declarant to be unavailable, be sure to watch out for confrontation issues. Remember, the Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial hearsay statements, and some statements to the police are testimonial in nature.
California Exception—Statement Describing Infliction or Threat of Physical Abuse
In California, a statement made by an unavailable declarant that describes, narrates, or explains the infliction or threat of physical injury on the declarant is admissible IF the statement:
• Was made at or near the time of the infliction or threat;
• Was either (1) in writing, (2) recorded, or (3) made to a law enforce- ment official or medical personnel; and
• Was made under circumstances that indicate trustworthiness
In California, a statement made by an unavailable declarant that describes, narrates, or explains the infliction or threat of physical injury on the declarant is admissible IF the statement:
• Declarant unavailable
• Statement Was made at or near the time of the infliction or threat;
• Statement Was either (1) in writing, (2) recorded, or (3) made to a law enforce- ment official or medical personnel; and
• Statement Was made under circumstances that indicate trustworthiness
Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: • Excited Utterances/Spontaneous Statements
Under federal and California law, a statement relating to a startling event, made while the declarant was under the stress of the excitement from the event, is admissible.
The only difference is that the Federal Rules call these statements “excited utterances,” and California calls them “spontaneous state- ments.”
Federal Rules call these statements “excited utterances,” and California calls them ____
The only difference is that the Federal Rules call these statements “excited utterances,” and California calls them “spontaneous statements.”
Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: • Statements of Present State of Mind or Condition
Under federal and California law, a statement of the declarant’s then-existing (present) state of mind (including their motive, intent, or plan) or their emotional, sensory, or physical condition is admissible. However, a statement of memory or belief is not admissible to prove the fact remembered or believed.
The only difference in California is that the trial judge has specific discretion to exclude statements that are made under circumstances that indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: • Statements Made for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment
FED: Under the Federal Rules, a statement that describes a person’s medical history, past or present symptoms, or their inception or general cause is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it was made for—and was reasonably pertinent to—medical diagnosis or treatment.
CA: The California exception is narrower. It applies only where: (1) the declarant is a minor at the time of the proceedings and was under age 12 at the time of their statement, and (2) their statement was made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment and described an act or attempted act of child abuse or neglect.
CA - Exception for Statements Made for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment APPLIES ONLY where:
CA: The California exception is narrower. It applies only where:
(1) the declarant is a minor at the time of the proceedings and was under age 12 at the time of their statement, and
(2) their statement was made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment and described an act or attempted act of child abuse or neglect.
Statements Made for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment: Related California Exception—Past Condition or State of Mind When at Issue in Case
Unavaiable declarant’s statement of PAST condition or statement of mind ADMISSABLE to prove that condition if CONDITION AT ISSUE in Case.
California Exception—Past Condition or State of Mind When at Issue in Case
In California, a statement of an unavailable declarant’s past physical condition, emotional condition, or state of mind (including their motive, intent, or plan) is admissible to prove that condition if it is an issue in the case.
There is no requirement that the statement be made for medical purposes.
The trial judge has specific discretion to exclude statements that are made under circumstances that indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Statements that don’t qualify under the “present state of mind or condition” or the “statements for medical diagnosis or treatment” exception in California might be admissible under which exception?
Statements that don’t qualify under the “present state of mind or condition” or the “statements for medical diagnosis or treatment” exception in California might be admissible under this California Exception—Past Condition or State of Mind When at Issue in Case—but remember, the declarant must be unavailable!
Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: • Business Records
FED: Under the Federal Rules, a writing or record made as a memorandum of any act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis is admissible in evidence as proof of that occurrence if the elements of the exception are met (made in the regular course of business, made at or near the time of the occurrence, and so on).
CA: The California business records exception does not refer to opinions or diagnoses, but courts still will admit simple opinions and diagnoses.
Elements of the Business Records exception
(Record was made in the regular course of business, regular practice to make such records, made at or near the time of the occurrence, etc?).
Business records exception - scope of exception
CA’s version doesnt specifically cover opinions or diagnoses but Cts admit them if simple.
Required Foundation for Business Records
FED: Under the Federal Rules, a business record can be authenticated by a records custodian or other qualified witness confirming that the record meets the elements of the business records exception. This can be accomplished by either (1) live testimony, or (2) written certifi- cation.
CA: California requires the records custodian or other qualified witness to testify as to the identity of the business record and its creation; a written certification is not sufficient.
Under the Federal Rules, a business record can be authenticated by….
Under the Federal Rules, a business record can be authenticated by a records custodian or other qualified witness confirming that the record meets the elements of the business records exception. This can be accomplished by either (1) live testimony, or (2) written certifi- cation.
CA Required Foundation for Business Records:
CA: California requires the records custodian or other qualified witness to testify as to the identity of the business record and its creation; a written certification is not sufficient.
Can you use a written certification as a foundation for business records in CA?
No, a written certification is not sufficient.
Public Records Exception - FEDERAL
Under the Federal Rules, the record of a public office is admissible if it is within any of the following 3 categories:
(1) the record describes the activities of the office;
(2) the record describes matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law (but not including police observations in criminal cases); or
(3) the record contains factual findings resulting from an investigation that was authorized by law (in a civil case or against gov in criminal case.
In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot offer a record falling within category (3).
Additionally, the record must have been made by and within the scope of the duty of the public employee, and it must have been made at or near the time of the event.
Public Records Exception - FEDERAL - the record of a public office is admissible if it is within any of the following 3 categories:
the record of a public office is admissible if it is within any of the following 3 categories:
(1) the record describes the activities of the office;
(2) the record describes matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law (but not including police observations in criminal cases); or
(3) the record contains factual findings resulting from an investigation that was authorized by law (in a civil case or against gov in criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot offer a record falling within category (3).
Police observations as a public record exception?
FED: Exception NOT including police observations in criminal cases. Admissible in CIVIL cases.
CA: Admissible in BOTH.
Public Records Exception - CALIFORNIA
CA’s BROADER exception, ANY public record ADMISSABLE IF:
- Within scope of public employee’s duties.
- Made at or near time of matters described.
- Trustworthy
CALIFORNIA Public Records Exception
The California public records exception is broader and does not restrict the record to the above categories; nor does it place the same restrictions on the prosecution or bar the admission of police observations. Under the California exception, a record of an act, condition, or event made by a public employee is admissible if:
• Making the record was within the scope of the public employee’s duties,
• The record was made at or near the time of the matters de- scribed, and
• The sources of information and the time of preparation indicate trustworthiness
In CA, ANY public record ADMISSABLE IF (3):
ANY public record ADMISSABLE IF:
- Within scope of public employee’s duties.
- Made at or near time of matters described.
- Trustworthy
Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: • Felony Judgments
FED: Under the Federal Rules, a felony conviction is admissible in both civil and criminal cases to prove any fact essential to the judgment. However, when offered by the prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused are inadmissible.
CA: California’s specific exception for convictions applies only in civil cases. Prop. 8 doesn’t change this hearsay law. However, a certified copy of a judgment of conviction is admissible under the California public records exception in both civil and criminal cases.
Fed: Felony Judgments
Under the Federal Rules, a felony conviction is admissible in both civil and criminal cases to prove any fact essential to the judgment (felon in possession of firearm- felony conviction).
However, when offered by the prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused are inadmissible.
CA: Felony Judgments
California’s specific hearsay exception for convictions applies only in civil cases. Prop. 8 doesn’t change this hearsay law.
HOWEVER, a certified copy of a judgment of conviction is admissible under the California public records exception in both civil and criminal cases.
California’s specific exception for convictions applies only in…
California’s specific exception for convictions applies only in civil cases.
Can you admit a certifified copy of a judment of conviction in CA?
YES. A certified copy of a judgment of conviction is admissible under the California public records exception in both civil and criminal cases.
In CA, a certified copy of a judgment of conviction is admissible under the….
A certified copy of a judgment of conviction is admissible under the California public records exception in both civil and criminal cases.
a certified copy of a judgment of conviction is admissible under the California public records exception in ___ cases
BOTH. a certified copy of a judgment of conviction is admissible under the California public records exception in both civil and criminal cases.
Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: • Civil Judgments
FED: Under the Federal Rules, prior civil judgments are generally inadmissible, with certain statutory exceptions. For example, a prior judgment may be admitted to prove matters of personal or family history, or boundaries of land.
CA: California recognizes 2 exceptions for civil judgments not found in the Federal Rules:
• A party may offer a final judgment against themselves when they sue another for indemnification, or to enforce a warranty, or to recover for breach of warranty.
• Where a third party’s liability or obligation is at issue in a civil case, a final judgment against that third party is admissible. (For exam- ple, if a defendant in a case had assumed a third party’s liabilities, a judgment against that third party would be admissible against that defendant.)
Civil Judgments in CA - CA: California recognizes 2 exceptions for civil judgments not found in the Federal Rules:
• A party may offer a final judgment against themselves when they sue another for indemnification, or to enforce a warranty, or to recover for breach of warranty.
• Where a third party’s liability or obligation is at issue in a civil case, a final judgment against that third party is admissible. (For exam- ple, if a defendant in a case had assumed a third party’s liabilities, a judgment against that third party would be admissible against that defendant.)
Additional California Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability
Statements by Child Abuse Victim in Criminal Case
Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: • Additional California Exception—Statements by Child Abuse Victim in Criminal Case
Previously discussed how statements of a child describing acts of child abuse or neglect are admissible under California’s “medical diagnosis or treatment” exception.
California recognizes a separate exception that admits such statements even where not made for medical diagnosis or treatment, but the requirements are a bit more stringent. As with the medical exception above, the child must be a minor at the time of trial and must have been under 12 years old when the statement was made. The differences are:
• This exception applies in criminal cases only;
• The court must find that there are sufficient indicia of reliability;
and
• Either (a) the child must testify at trial, or (b) if the child is unavailable, there must be evidence to corroborate the child’s statement.
Watch out for confrontation issues where the child is unavailable and their statement was testimonial in nature.
(California Only) Hearsay Exception Not Requiring Unavailability: —Statements by Child Abuse Victim in Criminal Case
California recognizes a separate exception that admits statements of a child describing acts of child abuse or neglect even where not made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
• The child must be a minor at the time of trial and must have been under 12 years old when the statement was made.
• This exception applies in CRIMINAL cases only;
• The court must find that there are sufficient indicia of reliability;
and
• Either (a) the child must testify at trial, or (b) if the child is unavailable, there must be evidence to corroborate the child’s statement.
RESIDUAL “CATCH-ALL” EXCEPTION
The Federal Rules recognize a catch-all exception for particularly trustworthy and necessary hearsay statements.
California does not recognize a catch-all exception, but judges can create new hearsay exceptions by decisional law.
Does California recognize a residual catch-all exception?
California does not recognize a catch-all exception, but judges can create new hearsay exceptions by decisional law.
