ONCALL
...Evidence
......Hearsay Exceptions re Statements
20 Cards On This Topic:

Mere fact that sexual abuse V's disclosure was not "fresh" did not render it inadmissible — any delay in disclosure went to weight, not admissibility; "fresh complaint" more aptly named "prior disclosure."

Abuse of discretion to admit deceased minor's statement to her mother re D's long-standing sex abuse under spontaneous utterance exception where minor had years to carefully consider whether to disclose it.

No Aranda-Bruton error in not allowing testimony and severing trials where none of co-D's statements to informant was testimonial.

Statements made by disinterested witnesses in response to police questioning usually do not qualify as spontaneous statements.

An ambiguous hearsay statement is not admissible as a prior inconsistent statement unless it is, in fact, inconsistent.

Trial court is best suited to determine if a witness is deliberately being evasive with “I don’t recall” answers and to decide whether to admit prior inconsistent testimony.

A witness may competently testify to his own state of mind when the witness’ state of mind is relevant to any issue in the case.

Parties’ judicial admissions they were married under Lebanese law was binding, but did not preclude a finding the marriage was void under CA law.

Requirements to admit intra-company communications as authorized admissions.

A change in D's version of the facts in a declaration merely creates a disputed fact for the court to resolve, not a “corrected” fact that eliminated the admission by D.

Corpus delicti rule requires an instruction no person may be convicted absent evidence of the crime independent of his or her out-of-court statements.

The amount of independent proof of a crime required to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite small.

Statement made by the victim shortly after the event while she was in pain clearly satisfied the requirements for a "spontaneous statement"; the one she made to the officer a bit later was a closer call.

In determining whether a statement is against interest, the court may take into account not just the words but the circumstances under which they were uttered.

Sufficient evidence was introduced to establish the corpus delicti of some charges against D, but not charge of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child ten yrs. old or younger.

D's conclusion based on his life experience, and his opinion and perception had a direct bearing on his state of mind during the interrogation.

Requirements for admission of evidence of prior inconsistent statements.

Coconspirator's hearsay statements properly admitted against D even though he argued there were two separate conspiracies, and therefore statements concerning conspiracy he did not participate in were inadmissible.

Statement of five-year-old child taken by police two years before child testified at trial qualified for the past recollection recorded hearsay exception even where child remembered only that he spoke to police and told the truth.

Child witness' statements made to police the morning of murders admissible under spontaneous statement hearsay exception even where child had time to contrive, misrepresent, reflect or fabricate.