ONCALL
...Evidence
......Hearsay
 40 Cards On This Topic:
  • A spontaneous statement does not automatically satisfy probationer's DP confrontation right, and is not automatically admissible in his probation revocation hearing.
  • A spontaneous statement does not automatically satisfy probationer's DP confrontation right, and is not automatically admissible in his probation revocation hearing.
  • Evidence of retail price for stolen item, whether an online listing or a store price tag, is admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of showing a retailer is advertising the item for a specified price in the marketplace.
  • Evidence of V's visit to sister offered to show propensity and was inadmissible hearsay, its nonhearsay use was not relevant, and court erred in allowing it; error harmless given abundant evidence of D's guilt.
  • Ex-W's e-mail to friend that D feared losing 50% of his assets improperly admitted under state of mind hearsay exception; absent evidence D knew of e-mail, probative value outweighed by prejudice.
  • Hearsay evidence is admissible at a gun violence restraining order hearing.
  • Intra-company communications are admissible as nonhearsay state of mind evidence D’s employees had knowledge of the problems discussed in them.
  • Third party's hearsay statement properly admitted for the limited purpose of weighing the witnesses' credibility—not for its truth.
  • Prior inconsistent statements may not be admitted for their truth at SJ, but only for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarant.
  • W&IC §6602(a) does not create an exception that allows hearsay regarding nonpredicate offenses to be introduced in a SVP probable cause hearing via evaluation reports.
  • A double hearsay statement is admissible if each level of hearsay comes within an exception to the hearsay rule.
  • The fact the testimonial statements made by the co-defendant were nonaccusatory does not insulate them from Crawford.
  • Evidence of statements made by a codefendant in response to police interrogations are covered by Crawford.
  • Double hearsay is admissible provided both statements are covered by an exception.
  • Defendant's confrontation clause rights not violated where minor-victim refused to testify and court admitted her non-testimonial interview with county social worker.
  • By his own wrongdoing, D forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine victim.
  • Witness recalling defendants' name and logo on invoices was not hearsay because they were not offered for their truth, but to show a disputed link between defendants and the pipes witness recalled being delivered to a project site.
  • Unavailable documents could be properly authenticated by oral testimony.
  • Admission of cellmate's contextual nonhearsay statements made during surreptitious recording of his conversation with D did not raise U.S. Const. Amend. VI Confrontation Clause concerns.
  • Federal indictment against defendant that was ultimately dismissed was admissible in his state court murder trial to explain his motive in killing his wife.
  • Defendant’s right of confrontation violated when he could not see witnesses as they testified because the court allowed a computer monitor to be positioned so they could testify in his presence without seeing him.
  • Trial ct. erred in admitting statements under the past recollection recorded hearsay exception where six years had elapsed between defendant's statements to witness and witness' repeating statements to law enforcement.
  • Statements by defendant's wife were inadmissible under Crawford v. Washington where D had no opportunity to cross-examine her; error harmless.
  • The attorney-client privilege did not bar admission of defendant's incriminating statement to his defense counsel where it was made loudly and in the presence of sheriff's deputy with no interest in the case.
  • Reliable hearsay may be admitted in a Prop. 64 resentencing hearing.
  • In a civil negligence action, exclusion of a nolo contendere plea from evidence under EC §1300 did not apply to the plea of a non-party driver.
  • Defendant's text exchange with his mother in which she indirectly accused him of robberies improperly admitted as an adoptive admission.
  • During hearing on motion to suppress evidence, police officer could rely on extra-judicial statements offered to show the information he relied on in arresting defendants, and not offered for statements' truth.
  • Error to exclude from evidence co-defendant's statement against penal interest where the record showed it was sufficiently trustworthy.
  • Co-conspirator's statement against penal interest relayed to the jury by a jailhouse informant properly admitted, as the hearsay rule and its exceptions are unconcerned with the credibility of a testifying witness.
  • Because co-conspirator's incriminating statements to a jailhouse informant were not testimonial in nature, D's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated.
  • Under EC §1242, the dying declaration hearsay exception requires the declarant's statement be made under a sense of immediately impending death.
  • W’s testimony that her daughter told her H had threatened to euthanize their dog was properly admitted to explain daughter’s state of mind.
  • In a limited civil case, a sworn written statement that constitutes inadmissible hearsay may be admitted if the affiant can be called as a witness via personal service, or via a recognized exception to the personal service rule.
  • Witness' hearsay statement admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
  • Because job site foreman was not a party-opponent, his statements identifying defendants' invoices at job site were inadmissible hearsay.
  • Double hearsay statement properly admitted against defendant under the statement of a party and prior inconsistent statement hearsay exceptions.
  • Victim's medical records could not be admitted under business records hearsay exception where they were obtained from a third party that could not authenticate them or show they met the exception's requirements.
  • Sixth Amendment right to face-to-face confrontation is not absolute, and alternative procedures may be used where (1) necessary to further an important or compelling state interest, and (2) the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.
  • Case-specific testimony of expert witness on gangs barred where it conveyed inadmissible hearsay; error was harmless.


    •