Hearsay - Revision history

Sysop: /* Fresh Complaint Doctrine */

2024-04-17T23:20:43Z

Fresh Complaint Doctrine

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 17 April 2024
Line 26:		Line 26:

	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.		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==		==California Hearsay Exceptions==

Sysop: /* Fresh Complaint Doctrine */

2024-04-15T04:24:22Z

Fresh Complaint Doctrine

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:24, 15 April 2024
Line 24:		Line 24:
	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		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.		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.

	==California Hearsay Exceptions==		==California Hearsay Exceptions==

Sysop: /* Fresh Complaint Doctrine */

2024-04-15T04:23:39Z

Fresh Complaint Doctrine

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:23, 15 April 2024
Line 21:		Line 21:

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

	==California Hearsay Exceptions==		==California Hearsay Exceptions==

Sysop: /* Fresh Complaint Doctrine */

2024-04-15T04:22:12Z

Fresh Complaint Doctrine

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, 15 April 2024
Line 17:		Line 17:

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

Sysop at 04:20, 15 April 2024

2024-04-15T04:20:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:20, 15 April 2024
Line 13:		Line 13:

	===Animals===		===Animals===

			===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.)

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

	==California Hearsay Exceptions==		==California Hearsay Exceptions==

Sysop: /* Business records */

2023-01-19T01:05:00Z

Business records

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:05, 19 January 2023
Line 74:		Line 74:
	===Business records===		===Business records===
	[[Business record]]s are admissible under EC1270.		[[Business record]]s 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===

Sysop: /* Preliminary Hearing */

2022-04-11T16:30:32Z

Preliminary Hearing

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 11 April 2022
Line 18:		Line 18:
	===Preliminary Hearing===		===Preliminary Hearing===
	Nienhouse v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 83		Nienhouse v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 83

			[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9170908116325829817 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===

Sysop: /* Preliminary Hearing */

2022-04-11T01:45:17Z

Preliminary Hearing

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:45, 11 April 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:

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

	===Multiple hearsay===		===Multiple hearsay===

Sysop: /* Prior inconsistent statements */

2022-04-11T01:44:44Z

Prior inconsistent statements

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 11 April 2022
Line 41:		Line 41:
	===Prior inconsistent statements===		===Prior inconsistent statements===
	[[Prior inconsistent statement]]s are admissible under EC1235.		[[Prior inconsistent statement]]s are admissible under EC1235.

			EC 1202. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11152740784955703335 ''People v. Baldwin'' (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 991]

	===Prior consistent statements===		===Prior consistent statements===

Sysop: /* Interpreters */

2019-07-31T14:32:25Z

Interpreters

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 31 July 2019
Line 4:		Line 4:

	===Interpreters===		===Interpreters===

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


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

	===Machines===		===Machines===