CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay Exceptions re Statements
......Admissions (Crim.)
.........In General
21 Cards On This Topic:

Statement not inadmissible as hearsay when offered against declarant in action to which he is party in individual or representative capacity.

Statement offered against party not made inadmissible by hearsay rule if party aware of content and manifested adoption or belief in its truth by words or conduct.

Statement otherwise admissible as hearsay is inadmissible against D in criminal action if made by D or another under circumstances where it is inadmissible against D under U.S. or Cal. Const.

D's stmts to O reflected his after-the-fact feelings about the murder and were properly before the jury as statements of a party under EC §1220; EC §1101 "other crimes" evidence to prove character not implicated.

D's statement to witness, that he had done to V what he had done to "the old lady" [sexual assault] was properly admitted as a party admission under EC 1220.

Trial court properly admitted D's taped jailhouse statements to accomplice where no implicit agreement between A and the police to elicit incriminating statements.

Detective's and later rape victim's evidence of D's stmts suggesting he previously committed similar crimes properly admitted under exceptions to hearsay rule.

D's statement to deputy that he would not contradict brother's statement as to D's commission of 1988 robbery of V came within "statements of party" hearsay exception.

Court properly concluded DA not limited to eliciting that D showed W incriminating items but could also show why: Bragging about being thief explained why D showed items and why W remembered.

Though D's statement only marginally relevant to guilt issues, properly submitted to jury to determine if it was admission, and weight.

Under the totality of the circumstances, O's handcuffing D for 2 minutes and asking "Is this your vehicle?" was not a custodial interrogation such as to require Miranda warnings.

Trial court did not err in admitting, as party admissions, D's closing statement from first trial, at which he represented himself.

Corpus delicti rule inapplicable where D's extrajudicial statements, his false entries on convicted sex offender form, constituted the crime itself.

Fact D had murder on his mind only days later, and talked about same scenario, highly relevant and indirect "acknowledgment" of crime: Stmt admissible as admission and consciousness of guilt, not as other crimes evidence.

Circumstantial evidence showed "demonstrable connection" b/t D and car and permitted "reasonable inference" he was driver, establishing corpus delicti and in turn permitting admission of extra-judicial statement that he was driving.

D's testimony as to what intermediary told him police agent had said to intermediary to pressure him to entrap D inadmissible; state-of-mind exception inapplicable.

Preliminary hearing transcript properly admitted to explain D's admissions.

To be admissible, party's admission must also be relevant; rules for implying admissions from express statements.

In criminal case, admission is extrajudicial statement by D and is admissible as exception to hearsay rule.

D's statements he would murder for hire are party admissions re conspiracy and attempted murder; inadmissible as to robbery charges.

D's statements in probation report admissible to prove elements of prior conviction as statements were not legislatively compelled.