Hearsay

According to Evidence Code section 1200, hearsay is "evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." Hearsay is inadmissible except as provided by law. However, the numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule completely overwhelm the rule.

Is it hearsay?

Interpreters

Correa v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 444, 454.

People v. Pantoja (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1, 12.

Fresh Complaint Doctrine

under the common law fresh-complaint doctrine, evidence that the alleged victim of a sexual offense disclosed or reported the incident to another person shortly after its occurrence has been held admissible, as part of the prosecution's case-in-chief, in a subsequent criminal prosecution for that offense. In California, the governing decisions have explained that the victim's extrajudicial “complaint” is admissible for a limited, nonhearsay purpose—namely, simply to establish that such a complaint was made—in order to forestall the trier of fact from inferring erroneously that no complaint was made, and from further concluding, as a result of that mistaken inference, that the victim in fact had not been exually assaulted. (People v. Brown (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 746, 748-749.)

under principles generally applicable to the determination of evidentiary relevance and admissibility, proof of an extrajudicial complaint, made by the victim of a sexual offense, *750 disclosing the alleged assault, may be admissible for a limited, nonhearsay purpose—namely, to establish the fact of, and the circumstances surrounding, the victim's disclosure of the assault to others—whenever the fact that the disclosure was made and the circumstances under which it was made are relevant to the trier of fact's determination as to whether the offense occurred. Under such generally applicable evidentiary rules, the timing of a complaint ***409 **951 (e.g., whether it was made promptly after the incident or, rather, at a later date) and the circumstances under which it was made (e.g., whether it was volunteered spontaneously or, instead, was made only in response to the inquiry of another person) are not necessarily determinative of the admissibility of evidence of the complaint. Thus, the “freshness” of a complaint, and the “volunteered” nature of the complaint, should not be viewed as essential prerequisites to the admissibility of such evidence. (People v. Brown (1994) 8 Cal.4th 746, 749-750.)

People v. Burton (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 328, 351, abrogated on other grounds by People v. Brown (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 746.

People v. Clark (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 178, 181 [cert. for part. pub.]; In re Cheryl H. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1128–1129; People v. Snyder (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1166.

See People v. Belasco (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 974, where the minor victim of a sexual assault made a complaint to her brother’s girlfriend the day after the incident, as well as to her boyfriend, and her boyfriend’s parents, three days later. The statements were all admitted as “fresh complaints.

People v. Manuel Dejesus Flores (Apr. 15, 2024, D083310) https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D083310.PDF

California Hearsay Exceptions

Preliminary Hearing

Nienhouse v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 83

Holowell v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 391 [magic words of "training in the investigation and reporting of cases and testifying at preliminary hearings" must be uttered for the Prop 115 foundation.]

Multiple hearsay

Multiple hearsay is admissible if each level of hearsay has a hearsay exception under EC1201.

Admission of party opponent

Admission of party opponent is admissible under EC1220.

Adoptive admission

Adoptive admission is admissible under EC1221.

Authorized admission

Authorized admission is admissible under EC1222.

Admission of co-conspirator

Admission of co-conspirator is admissible under EC1223.

Declarations against interest

If the declarant is unavailable, declarations against interest are admissible under EC1230.

Prior inconsistent statements

Prior inconsistent statements are admissible under EC1235.

EC 1202. People v. Baldwin (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 991

Prior consistent statements

Prior consistent statements are admissible under EC1236.

Past recollection recorded

Past recollection recorded is admissible under EC1237.

Prior identification

Prior identification is admissible under EC1238.

Spontaneous statement

Spontaneous statements are admissible under EC1240.

Contemporaneous statement

Contemporaenous statements are admissible under EC1241.

Dying declaration

Dying declarations are admissible under EC1242.

Business records

Business records are admissible under EC1270.

Medical records as business records

People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 535 People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405

KeyCite 110k436(5)

Official records

Official records are admissible under EC1280. A prior conviction is admissible under EC452.5 and EC1280.

Former testimony

In a criminal proceeding, if the declarant is unavailable, former testimony is admissible under EC1291.

Commercial and scientific publications

Publications of general notoriety and interests

|Publications of general notoriety and interest are admissible under EC1341

Federal hearsay exclusions and exceptions

Prior inconsistent statements

Prior inconsistent statements are not hearsay under FRE801(d)(1)(A)

Prior consistent statements

Prior consistent statements are not hearsay under FRE801(d)(1)(B)

Prior identification

Prior identification is not hearsay under FRE801(d)(1)(C)

Admission of party opponent

Admission of party opponent is not hearsay under FRE801(d)(2)

Present sense impression

Present sense impression is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(1).

Excited utterance

Excited utterance is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(2).

Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition

Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(3)

Statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment

Statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(4).

Recorded recollection

Recorded recollection is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(5).

Records of a regularly conducted activity

records of a regularly conducted activity are an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(6). Absence of such records are an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(7).

Public records

Public records are an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(8). Public records of vital statistics are an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(9). Absence of public records are an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(10).

Learned treatise

Learned treatises are an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(18).

Judgment of a previous conviction

Judgment of a previous conviction is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE801(22).

Former testimony

If the witness is unavailable, former testimony is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE804(b)(1)

Statement Under the Belief of Imminent Death

If the witness is unavailable, a statement under the belief of imminent death is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE804(b)(2).

Statement against interest

If the witness is unavailable, statements against interest are an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE804(b)(3).

Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Party's Unavailability

An exception to the hearsay rule under FRE803(b)(6).

Hearsay within hearsay

Hearsay within hearsay is an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE805 if each level of hearsay has an exception.

Residual exception

Statements may be admitted despite the hearsay rule under the residual exception rule per FRE807.