CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Domestic Violence
......Evidentiary Issues
 22 Cards On This Topic:
  • Quantum of proof required for issuance of DVPA TROs is “reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.”
  • Hearsay exceptions: narration of infliction or threat of physical injury.
  • Using Wife’s statements at D’s trial violated Confrontation Clause: Where testimonial stmts at issue, only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands (6th Amend.) is actual confrontation and opportunity to cross-examine.
  • Where testimonial evidence is at issue, Sixth Amendment demands what common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
  • D's confrontation and cross-exam. rights violated in DV trial where court precluded inquiry into threats DA made to D's W to coerce her into testifying against him.
  • As unwarned stipulation to a prior DV conviction (PC 273.5(e)(1)) had the direct consequence of subjecting D to longer prison term, stipulation was invalid under In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 and sentence set aside.
  • Residential burglary based on an intent to steal theory is an act of domestic violence for which prior acts of domestic violence are admissible under Evid. Code §1109.
  • Victim need not include details of all alleged abuse so long as alleged abuser is placed on notice of the general allegations.
  • Defendant's uncharged prior acts of DV against victim properly admitted to prove crimes against victim's mother where D threatened her at gunpoint in victim's presence.
  • Evidence of acts of DV against victim that were more than ten years old properly admitted at trial in the interest of justice.
  • D's prior convictions for PC §273.5 intimate partner battering were crimes of moral turpitude and properly admitted for impeachment purposes.
  • Trial court properly found D engaged in "abuse" per DVPA based on the evidence and was not required to find a probability of future abuse before issuing an RO under FC §6300.
  • Trial court erred in not allowing the jury to consider evidence of intimate partner abuse for the purpose of assessing whether D formed the specific intent required to commit the charged crimes.
  • Charges in CA that H injured W in HI dismissed where no evidence H did an overt act in CA intended as a material step toward committing HI offenses, nor that he intended punching W in HI to produce detrimental effects in CA.
  • Murdered W’s out-of-court statements that she feared H properly admitted where her mental state was placed in issue.
  • Trial court properly admitted W's statements concerning D's assault on the dog as circumstantial evidence of her state of mind and her concern for her safety and for that of Cs.
  • At H’s trial for murdering W, no abuse of discretion in allowing expert testimony on intimate partner abuse under EC 1250, 1240, 801 and 1107.
  • Trial court properly admitted O's hearsay testimony of D's wife narrating the infliction of physical where D had opportunity to cross-examine her at prelim.; Crawford v. Wash. standard applied.
  • Court did not err in admitting evidence of D's prior act of domestic violence under EC 1109.
  • Evidence of other acts of domestic violence.
  • Hearsay exception re threats of harm does not violate confrontation clause
  • Evidentiary issues that can arise in Domestic Violence and Custody matters.


    •