You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters

Jefferson's California Evidence Benchbook

This classic resource—relied on and kept current by attorneys and judges, and widely quoted for more than four decades—is the best way to research evidence issues before a deposition, mediation, hearing, or trial. Published jointly with the California Judges Association.

"I learned evidence by reading this book. It covers every rule in detail with case law examples. Hands-down the best book on California evidence ever written. This is one book every litigator should have."
Christopher C. Melcher, Walzer & Melcher LLP, Woodland Hills

This classic resource—relied on and kept current by attorneys and judges, and widely quoted for more than four decades—is the best way to research evidence issues before a deposition, mediation, hearing, or trial. Published jointly with the California Judges Association.

  • Provides practice-oriented analyses of evidentiary issues, consistent with the Jefferson tradition
  • Shows how trial courts treat specific evidence, using case-based illustrations
  • Covers issues important to both civil and criminal attorneys
  • Contrasts California and federal evidence law, citing the latest developments
  • Builds on black-letter rules with insightful judicial comments
  • Tackles thorny emerging issues, including handling of electronic evidence
  • Provides an understanding of both the underpinnings and practical side of presenting evidence
OnLAW CP94830

Web access for one user.

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 445.00
Print CP33830

4th edition, 2 looseleaf volumes, updated 2/18

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 445.00
Add OnLAW to print CP94830(40)
$ 99.00
"I learned evidence by reading this book. It covers every rule in detail with case law examples. Hands-down the best book on California evidence ever written. This is one book every litigator should have."
Christopher C. Melcher, Walzer & Melcher LLP, Woodland Hills

This classic resource—relied on and kept current by attorneys and judges, and widely quoted for more than four decades—is the best way to research evidence issues before a deposition, mediation, hearing, or trial. Published jointly with the California Judges Association.

  • Provides practice-oriented analyses of evidentiary issues, consistent with the Jefferson tradition
  • Shows how trial courts treat specific evidence, using case-based illustrations
  • Covers issues important to both civil and criminal attorneys
  • Contrasts California and federal evidence law, citing the latest developments
  • Builds on black-letter rules with insightful judicial comments
  • Tackles thorny emerging issues, including handling of electronic evidence
  • Provides an understanding of both the underpinnings and practical side of presenting evidence
OnLAW System Requirements:
Desktop: Windows XP, 7 or 8, Mac OS 10.8
Mobile: iOS6, iOS7, Android 4.2
Firefox, Chrome, IE and Safari browsers

Note: OnLAW may work with some devices running older versions of these Operating Systems or Windows RT; however, functionality is not guaranteed.

Please see FAQs for more details.

1

Hearsay and Nonhearsay Evidence

  • I.  HEARSAY EXCLUSIONARY RULE; DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMISSIBILITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Hearsay Evidence”  1.1
      • 2.  Rule: Definitions of “Statement,” “Declarant,” and “Evidence”  1.2
      • 3.  Rule: Hearsay Is Inadmissible Unless Exception Applies  1.3
      • 4.  Rule: Hearsay That Satisfies Exception Must Be Relevant to Be Admissible  1.4
      • 5.  Rule: Relevant Hearsay That Satisfies Exception May Be Excluded Under Evid C §352  1.5
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Reasons for Excluding Hearsay Evidence  1.6
      • 2.  Hearsay Rule Not Applicable in Every Proceeding  1.7
      • 3.  Hearsay Exceptions May Be Created by Statute or Decisional Law  1.8
      • 4.  Examples of Statements Considered Hearsay
        • a.  Witness’s Prior Statement Is Hearsay Even if Witness Testifies to Statement  1.9
        • b.  Prior Testimony Is Hearsay  1.10
        • c.  Statement Made in Presence of Party Against Whom It Is Offered Is Hearsay  1.11
      • 5.  Federal Law
        • a.  Definition of Hearsay Under Federal Rules of Evidence  1.12
        • b.  Residual Exception for Hearsay Statement With Equivalent Circumstantial Guarantees of Trustworthiness  1.13
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Hearsay Evidence Admissible by Exception Is Excluded Because Evidence Is Irrelevant  1.14
  • II.  IMPLIED HEARSAY
    • A.  Rule: Implied Hearsay Statement  1.15
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Implied Hearsay Is What Speaker Intended or What Hearer Believed Speaker Meant  1.16
      • 2.  Implied Hearsay Statement Presents Same Dangers as Express Hearsay Statement  1.17
      • 3.  Common Types of Implied Hearsay Statements
        • a.  Service Bill Is Hearsay But May Be Admissible Under Judicially Created Exception  1.18
        • b.  Utility Bill Found on Premises Contains Implied Hearsay  1.19
        • c.  Implied Hearsay Statements in Telephone Call Received at Crime Scene Used to Identify Use of Premises  1.20
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Implied Statement Too Speculative to Constitute Party’s Admission  1.21
      • 2.  Defendant’s Express Statement Construed as Implied Admission  1.22
      • 3.  Physician’s Bill for Medical Services Is Implied Hearsay Statement  1.23
      • 4.  Medical Bill Admissible to Corroborate Reasonableness of Doctor’s Charges  1.24
      • 5.  Bill for Television Services Offered to Show Particular Charges Inadmissible Hearsay Absent Foundational Showing of Hearsay Exception  1.25
  • III.  OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS AS NONHEARSAY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Statement Offered for Purpose Other Than to Prove Truth of Facts Stated Is Not Hearsay  1.26
      • 2.  Rule: Statement Offered for Nonhearsay Purpose Must Be Relevant to Be Admissible  1.27
      • 3.  Rule: Court May Exclude Relevant Nonhearsay Evidence Under Evid C §352  1.28
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Distinguishing Between Hearsay and Nonhearsay Purpose  1.29
      • 2.  Examples of Nonhearsay Theories of Admissibility  1.30
      • 3.  Statements That May Be Considered Nonhearsay Even if Admitted for Their Truth  1.31
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Complaint by Victim of Sexual Assault Is Admissible as Nonhearsay  1.32
      • 2.  Declarant’s Nonhearsay Statement Must Be Relevant to Be Admissible  1.33
  • IV.  STATEMENT IS NOT HEARSAY IF OFFERED TO PROVE HEARER’S STATE OF MIND AND ACTION IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH
    • A.  Rule: Statement Offered to Prove Hearer’s Knowledge and Belief and Action in Conformity With That Knowledge Is Not Hearsay  1.34
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Hearer’s Reaction and Credibility Are Important and Hearer Can Be Cross-Examined  1.35
      • 2.  Trial Judge Does Not Decide Persuasiveness of Evidence  1.36
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Statements Showing Hearer’s State of Mind and Ensuing Conduct Are Not Hearsay  1.37
      • 2.  Statement Offered to Explain Reason for Plaintiff’s Stipulation Is Not Hearsay  1.38
      • 3.  Declarants’ Statements to Defendant, Causing Defendant to Dislike Codefendant, Are Nonhearsay and Relevant  1.39
  • V.  DECLARANT’S STATEMENT OFFERED TO PROVE, BY INFERENCE, DECLARANT’S STATE OF MIND AND CONDUCT IN CONFORMITY IS NONHEARSAY
    • A.  Rule: Statement Offered to Prove by Inference State of Mind and Conduct in Conformity  1.40
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Declarant’s State of Mind Must Be Directly Relevant  1.41
      • 2.  Distinguishing Between Statement Directly Asserting State of Mind and Statement That Communicates State of Mind Circumstantially  1.42
      • 3.  False Exculpatory Statement Is Admissible Nonhearsay  1.43
      • 4.  Court May Use Evid C §352 to Exclude Nonhearsay Evidence  1.44
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Direct Statement About State of Mind Is Hearsay  1.45
      • 2.  Evidence Contradicting Exculpatory Statement May Provide Foundation for Admission  1.46
      • 3.  Victim’s Statement That Defendant Said He Would Kill Her if She Left Him Is Nonhearsay  1.47
  • VI.  DECLARANT’S STATEMENT OFFERED TO PROVE MAKING OF STATEMENT AS RELEVANT FACT IS NONHEARSAY
    • A.  Rule: Statement Offered to Prove Making of Statement as Relevant Fact  1.48
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Statement Offered to Show Words Were Spoken  1.49
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Government Agency Minutes Are Not Hearsay  1.50
      • 2.  Statement of Consent Is Not Hearsay  1.51
  • VII.  NONVERBAL CONDUCT IS HEARSAY ONLY IF MEANT OR CONSTRUED AS SUBSTITUTE FOR ORAL OR WRITTEN VERBAL EXPRESSION
    • A.  Rule: Nonverbal Conduct as Substitute for Oral or Written Expression  1.52
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Nonverbal Conduct Is Nonhearsay if Not Assertive  1.53
      • 2.  Determining Whether Specific Conduct Is Assertive or Nonassertive  1.54
      • 3.  Nonassertive Conduct That Is Nonhearsay Must Be Relevant to Be Admissible  1.55
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Defendant’s Passive Response to Another’s Statement May Be Nonhearsay Conduct  1.56
      • 2.  Silence of Victim as Testified to by Witness in Criminal Case Not Hearsay  1.57

2

Hearsay Exceptions: General Principles

Hon. Barrett J. Foerster

  • I.  ADMISSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE HEARSAY
    • A.  Rule: Hearsay Exception Required for Admission of Each Level of Multiple Hearsay  2.1
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  One Admissible Hearsay Statement May Be Used to Prove Another  2.2
      • 2.  When Multiple Hearsay Limitation Does Not Apply
        • a.  Proceedings Under Sexually Violent Predator Act  2.3
        • b.  Unbiased and Accurate Translation  2.4
      • 3.  Federal Law  2.5
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Contemporaneous Translation of Hearsay Statement Does Not Add Additional Layer of Hearsay  2.6
      • 2.  Use of Declarant’s Prior Inconsistent Statement
        • a.  To Prove Defendant’s Admission Made to Declarant  2.7
        • b.  To Prove Another Declarant’s Prior Inconsistent Statement  2.8
        • c.  To Prove Defendant’s Admission  2.9
        • d.  To Prove Defendant’s Admission to Third Person and Overheard by Declarant  2.10
      • 3.  Failure to Satisfy Each Level of Hearsay With Hearsay Exception Bars Admissibility  2.11
  • II.  STATEMENTS THAT SATISFY HEARSAY RULE EXCEPTIONS MAY BE EXCLUDED BY OTHER EVIDENTIARY RULES
    • A.  Rule: Exclusionary Rules Apply to Hearsay Statements That Satisfy Exceptions  2.12
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Hearsay Evidence That Satisfies Hearsay Exception Not Automatically Admissible  2.13
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Murder Confession Made to Former Wife During Marriage Barred by Marital Communications Privilege  2.14
  • III.  STATEMENTS THAT SATISFY HEARSAY RULE EXCEPTIONS MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM USE AGAINST CRIMINAL DEFENDANT BY CONSTITUTIONAL OR DECISIONAL LAW
    • A.  Rule: Constitutional or Decisional Law May Exclude Otherwise Admissible Hearsay in Criminal Cases  2.15
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Checklist: Statements in Criminal Cases  2.16
      • 2.  Involuntary Confessions Inadmissible for All Purposes  2.17
      • 3.  Statements Made in Violation of Miranda Admissible Only for Impeachment  2.18
      • 4.  Crawford v Washington: Confrontation Clause May Bar Introduction of Otherwise Admissible Hearsay
        • a.  Testimonial Hearsay  2.19
        • b.  Nontestimonial Hearsay  2.20
        • c.  Nontestimonial Hearsay That Evolves Into Testimonial Hearsay  2.20A
        • d.  Probation Revocation and Other Proceedings  2.20B
        • e.  Unavailability Requirement  2.21
        • f.  Retroactive Application  2.22
        • g.  Forfeiture of Confrontation Rights  2.23
        • h.  Crawford and Evid C §356  2.24
        • i.  Crawford and Reports of Forensic Analysis  2.25
      • 5.  Use Immunity Bars Introduction of Certain Statements in Prosecution’s Case-in-Chief  2.26
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Witness for Criminal Defendant Cannot Be Impeached by Prior Inconsistent Statement Involuntarily Given  2.27
      • 2.  Use in Adult Court of Minor’s Admissions in Fitness Proceedings  2.28
      • 3.  Voluntary Admission by Criminal Defendant to Probation Officer Before Guilty Plea Is Withdrawn Is Admissible at Trial to Impeach Defendant  2.29
      • 4.  Defendant’s Testimony at Probation Revocation Hearing Admissible at Later Criminal Trial Based on Same Alleged Acts Only to Impeach if Defendant Testifies  2.30
      • 5.  Defendant’s Incriminating Note Seized in Unlawful Search of His Vehicle Admissible as Prior Inconsistent Statement to Attack Defendant’s Credibility as Witness  2.31
      • 6.  Defendant’s Statement at Competency Examination Is Inadmissible at Later Trial as Prior Inconsistent Statement  2.32
  • IV.  RULE: HEARSAY EVIDENCE MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION  2.33
  • V.  ATTACKING AND SUPPORTING CREDIBILITY OF HEARSAY DECLARANT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Declarant’s Inconsistent Statement Admissible to Attack Credibility of Declarant  2.34
      • 2.  Rule: Evidence Other Than Inconsistent Statement to Attack or Support Credibility of Hearsay Declarant Admissible if It Would Be Admissible Had Declarant Been Witness  2.35
      • 3.  Rule: Inconsistent Statement Admissible for Its Truth in Criminal Case as Provided in Evid C §1294  2.36
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Inconsistent Statement of Hearsay Declarant Admissible Even Though Declarant Not Available to Explain or Deny  2.37
      • 2.  Inconsistent Statement of Hearsay Declarant Admissible Only to Impeach and Not for Truth of Matter Stated Except as Provided in Evid C §1294  2.38
      • 3.  Distinguish Inconsistent Statement Admissible for Impeachment from Inconsistent Statement Admissible for Its Truth  2.39
      • 4.  Federal Law  2.40
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  If Requirements of Evid C §1294 Not Met, Declarant’s Inconsistent Statements Not Admissible for Their Truth  2.41
      • 2.  Use of Evid C §352 to Preclude Impeachment of Hearsay Declarant With Evidence of Inconsistent Statement  2.42
  • VI.  UNAVAILABILITY OF WITNESS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Declarant Unavailable as Witness  2.43
      • 2.  Rule: Hearsay Exceptions That Require Declarant Unavailability  2.44
      • 3.  Rule: Hearsay Exceptions Requiring That Declarant Be Dead  2.45
      • 4.  Rule: Special Rules in Criminal Cases  2.46
      • 5.  Rule: When Declarant Not Considered Unavailable  2.47
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Unavailability of Witness  2.48
      • 2.  Ground of Mental Infirmity
        • a.  Nature of Infirmity  2.49
        • b.  Expert Testimony May Establish Mental Infirmity as Ground for Witness Unavailability  2.50
      • 3.  When Diligence in Securing Declarant’s Presence Must Be Shown
        • a.  Proponent Who Relies on Evid C §240(a)(5) to Establish Declarant’s Unavailability Must Show Reasonable Diligence to Procure Declarant’s Attendance by Court’s Process  2.51
        • b.  No Showing of Diligence Required in Civil Cases or by Criminal Defendant When Declarant Beyond Court’s Process  2.52
        • c.  Prosecution Must Make Good Faith Effort and Exercise Reasonable Diligence to Secure Presence of Witness Under Evid C §240(a)(4)  2.53
      • 4.  Use of Statutory Procedures to Secure Presence of Witness Under Evid C §240(a)(5)  2.54
      • 5.  Exercise of Privilege Not to Testify as Ground for Witness Unavailability  2.55
      • 6.  Federal Law  2.56
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Diligence
        • a.  Adequate Showing by Prosecution of Reasonable Diligence in Securing Witness’s Presence  2.57
        • b.  Inadequate Showing by Prosecution of Reasonable Diligence in Securing Witness’s Presence  2.58
        • c.  Inadequate Showing by Defense of Reasonable Diligence in Securing Witness’s Presence  2.59
        • d.  In Civil Case, Declarant in Another State Deemed Unavailable Without Showing of Due Diligence to Obtain Declarant’s Attendance  2.60
        • e.  Establishing Reasonable Diligence in Civil Case When Witness’s Whereabouts Unknown  2.61
      • 2.  Mental Infirmity
        • a.  Declarant’s Testimony on Mental Infirmity to Establish Witness Unavailability  2.62
        • b.  Expert Testimony to Establish Declarant’s Mental Infirmity  2.63
        • c.  Witness’s Fear for Safety of Self and Family as Mental Infirmity to Establish Witness Unavailability  2.64
      • 3.  Declarant’s Exercise of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination to Establish Unavailability  2.65
      • 4.  Uniform Act as Integral Part of California’s Court Process to Secure Witnesses  2.66
  • VII.  EVIDENCE RULES APPLY TO PROOF THAT DECLARANT IS UNAVAILABLE AS WITNESS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Burden of Proof  2.67
      • 2.  Rule: Admissible Evidence Required for Proof  2.68
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Rules of Evidence Apply to Proof of Unavailability of Hearsay Declarant as Witness  2.69
      • 2.  Federal Law  2.70
  • VIII.  ADVERSE PARTY HAS RIGHT TO CALL AND CROSS-EXAMINE HEARSAY DECLARANT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Leading Questions May Be Used  2.71
      • 2.  Rule: When Leading Questions May Not Be Used  2.72
      • 3.  Rule: If Declarant Unavailable for Questioning  2.73
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Available Declarant May Generally Be Called and Examined With Leading Questions by Adverse Party  2.74
      • 2.  Some Available Declarants Not Subject to Examination With Leading Questions by Adverse Party  2.75
      • 3.  Declarant’s Unavailability for Cross-Examination Does Not Bar Statement’s Admission Under Appropriate Hearsay Exception  2.76

3

Admissions and Confessions

Hon. Laurie D. Zelon

  • I.  ADMISSIONS IN GENERAL; HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Exceptions to Hearsay Rule for Admissions Offered Against Party for Truth of Matter Stated  3.1
      • 2.  Rule: “Admission” Includes Admissions, Confessions, Statements, and Conduct
        • a.  Admissions and Confessions  3.2
        • b.  Statements or Conduct  3.2A
        • c.  Judicial Admissions  3.2B
      • 3.  Rule: Admissions Must Be Introduced Against Party for Truth of Matter Stated  3.3
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Admissibility Requirements Are Different When Party Wishes to Introduce Own Statement  3.4
      • 2.  Party’s Admissions Offered Against Party Are Admissible  3.5
      • 3.  Possible Alternatives for Introducing Statement  3.6
  • II.  ADMISSION OF PARTY, PERSONALLY MADE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Party’s Personal Admission Must Be Relevant  3.7
      • 2.  Rule: Special Requirements in Criminal Cases  3.8
      • 3.  Rule: Party’s False Statement May Be Admitted to Show Consciousness of Guilt  3.9
      • 4.  Rule: Expression of Sympathy to Person Involved in Accident Is Inadmissible as Admission of Liability  3.10
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Party’s Statement Must Be Offered for Truth of Matter Stated  3.11
      • 2.  Party’s False Statement Offered as Nonhearsay  3.12
      • 3.  Statement Admissible Even Though Not Made Under Oath and No Right to Cross-Examine  3.13
      • 4.  Personal Knowledge May Be Required  3.14
      • 5.  Statements May Be Admissible for What They Imply  3.15
      • 6.  Admission Does Not Have Effect of Res Judicata  3.16
      • 7.  Guilty Pleas Are Admissions  3.17
      • 8.  Federal Law  3.18
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Party’s Implied Statement Derived From Express Words  3.19
      • 2.  Express Statement Viewed for What It Implies  3.20
      • 3.  Party’s Prior Statement Was Self-Serving When Made  3.21
      • 4.  Party’s Answers to Interrogatories as Admissions  3.22
      • 5.  Party’s Answers to Interrogatories Offered by Party  3.23
  • III.  ADOPTIVE ADMISSIONS
    • A.  Rule: Adoptive Admission Is Party’s Adoption of Another’s Hearsay Statement  3.24
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Party Must Have Knowledge of Content of Other Person’s Statement  3.25
      • 2.  Party Must Adopt Other Person’s Statement  3.26
      • 3.  Party May Adopt Another’s Statement by Nonverbal Conduct  3.27
      • 4.  Federal Law  3.28
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Statement of Opinion in Fire Accident Report Made by Defendant Corporation’s Employee  3.29
      • 2.  Documents Containing Defendant’s Signature  3.30
      • 3.  Criminal Defendant’s Conduct of Silence and Smiling in Face of Declarant’s Accusatory Statement  3.31
  • IV.  AUTHORIZED ADMISSION
    • A.  Rule: Statement Authorized by Party Is Admissible as Authorized Admission  3.32
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Authority for Making Statement; Law of Agency Applies  3.33
      • 2.  If Specific Statement Not Authorized, Statement Must Concern Authorized Subject Matter  3.34
      • 3.  Party’s Authorization Is Preliminary Fact to Be Proved  3.35
      • 4.  Timing of Admission of Statement  3.36
      • 5.  Statements in Unverified and Verified Pleadings Are Admissible  3.37
      • 6.  Federal Law  3.38
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Deposition Relating to Authorized Admission at Company Meeting on Laying Off Older Workers  3.39
  • V.  ADMISSION OF CO-CONSPIRATOR
    • A.  Rule: Admission of Co-Conspirator  3.40
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Co-Conspirator Exception Is Like Authorized-Admission Exception  3.41
      • 2.  Confrontation Clause Issues  3.42
      • 3.  Foundational Facts That Must Be Proved  3.43
      • 4.  Co-Conspirator Statement May Be Admitted Before or After Foundation Established  3.44
      • 5.  Admissibility of Statement After Conspiracy Is Complete  3.45
      • 6.  Statement Does Not Have to Be Made to Another Co-Conspirator  3.46
      • 7.  Guilty Plea by Codefendant  3.47
      • 8.  Instructions Concerning Co-Conspirator Statements  3.48
      • 9.  Federal Law  3.49
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Proof Required of Ongoing Conspiracy at Time Statement Was Made  3.50
  • VI.  STATEMENT OF DECLARANT WHOSE LIABILITY OR BREACH OF DUTY IS IN ISSUE IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST PARTY TO CIVIL ACTION
    • A.  Rule: When Evidence of Hearsay Statement on Liability or Breach of Duty Is Admissible  3.51
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Hearsay Statements in Civil Actions Admissible on Liability or Breach of Duty  3.52
      • 2.  Relationship Between Evid C §1224, Declarations Against Interest, and Judgments  3.53
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Statement of Declarant Whose Act Would Bar Party’s Claim, Offered Against Party  3.54
      • 2.  Decedent’s Statement of Indebtedness to Plaintiff for Breach of Contract Offered Against Decedent’s Executor  3.55
  • VII.  STATEMENT OF DECLARANT IN ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST PLAINTIFF BRINGING ACTION
    • A.  Rule: Deceased Declarant’s Admission Is Admissible When Offered Against Heir or Representative in Wrongful Death Action  3.56
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Admissibility of Deceased Declarant’s Admissions  3.57
  • VIII.  STATEMENT OF MINOR CHILD IN PARENT’S ACTION FOR CHILD’S INJURY
    • A.  Rule: Minor Child’s Admission Regarding Injury Admissible Against Parent  3.58
    • B.  Judicial Comment: When Injured Child’s Admission Admissible Against Child’s Parent  3.59
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Statement of Minor Child Offered Against Parent as Plaintiff in Action for Child’s Injury  3.60
  • IX.  STATEMENT REGARDING RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST IN REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR IN CLAIM
    • A.  Rule: When Statement Regarding Right, Title, or Interest Is Admissible  3.61
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Statements of Predecessors in Interest Are Admissible Against Successors  3.62
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Admissions of Predecessor in Title  3.63
  • X.  EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENT OF MINOR VICTIM MAY BE USED TO ESTABLISH CORPUS DELICTI IN CERTAIN SEX CRIMES  3.64
  • XI.  RULE: PARENT’S FAILURE TO COOPERATE IN TERMINATION-OF-RIGHTS CASE  3.65

4

Business Records

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

  • I.  GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS-RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: What Constitutes a “Business”  4.1
      • 2.  Rule: Application of Business-Records Exception  4.2
      • 3.  Rule: What Constitutes a “Writing”  4.3
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Definition of “Business” for Purposes of Business-Records Exception  4.4
      • 2.  Unavailability of Recorder Not Required  4.5
      • 3.  Authentication Testimony Required From Custodian of Business Record or Other Qualified Witness  4.6
      • 4.  Regular Course of Business  4.7
      • 5.  Time of Entry  4.8
      • 6.  Satisfying Trustworthiness Requirement  4.9
      • 7.  When Fewer Than All Entries in Business Record Are Reliable  4.10
      • 8.  Production of Copies of Business Records by Subpoena (Evid C §§1560–1565)  4.11
      • 9.  Confrontation Issues Under Crawford v Washington  4.12
      • 10.  Federal Law  4.13
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Medical Records Can Be Admissible Despite Deficiencies and Missing Information  4.14
      • 2.  Autopsy Report With Sufficient Proof of Identity and Mode of Preparation  4.15
      • 3.  Fire Accident Report Made by Defendant Corporation Is Admissible Against Defendant Corporation  4.16
  • II.  STATEMENT OF OPINION AS ADMISSIBLE PORTION OF BUSINESS RECORD
    • A.  Rule: When Statement of Opinion Is Admissible as Part of Business Record  4.17
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Admissibility of Opinions in Business Records  4.18
      • 2.  Federal Law  4.19
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Criminal Probation Report That Fails to Qualify as Business or Official Record  4.20
  • III.  ABSENCE OF ENTRY IN BUSINESS RECORDS
    • A.  Rule: When Absence From Records Admissible  4.21
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Evidence to Prove Absence of Entry in Business Records Is Subject to Hearsay and Other Rules of Evidence  4.22
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Affidavit of Custodian Offered to Prove Absence of Entry in Business Record Was Inadmissible  4.23
  • IV.  DATA STORED IN COMPUTER AS BUSINESS RECORD  4.24

5

Official Records and Writings

  • I.  RECORD MADE BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
    • A.  Rule: Record by Public Employee  5.1
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Testimony of Custodian of Records or Other Qualified Witness Not Required  5.2
      • 2.  Establishing Trustworthiness  5.3
      • 3.  Accident Reports  5.4
      • 4.  Data Stored in Computers  5.5
      • 5.  Shifting Burden of Proof  5.6
      • 6.  Federal Law  5.7
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Police Officer’s Sworn Report Held Admissible  5.8
      • 2.  Sufficient Proof of Identity and Mode of Preparation  5.9
      • 3.  Criminal Detention Facility Records  5.10
      • 4.  Rap Sheets  5.11
  • II.  RECORD OF VITAL STATISTIC: BIRTH, FETAL DEATH, DEATH, OR MARRIAGE
    • A.  Rule: Record of Vital Statistic  5.12
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Admissibility of Vital Records  5.13
  • III.  STATEMENT OF OPINION AS ADMISSIBLE PORTION OF OFFICIAL RECORD
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Requirements for Statement of Opinion in Writing  5.14
      • 2.  Rule: When Requirements Waived  5.15
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Admissibility of Opinions and Conclusions  5.16
      • 2.  Federal Law  5.17
  • IV.  ABSENCE OF PUBLIC RECORD
    • A.  Rule: Absence of Public Record  5.18
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Absence of Public Record May Be Proved by Writing  5.19
      • 2.  Federal Law  5.20

6

Declarations Against Interest

  • I.  RULES
    • A.  Rule: Primary Requirements for Declarations Against Interest  6.1
    • B.  Rule: Only Portions of Statements That Are Against Declarant’s Interest Are Admissible  6.2
    • C.  Rule: Statement Must Be Relevant to Prove Disputed Fact  6.3
  • II.  JUDICIAL COMMENTS
    • A.  Objective Test of Declarant’s Realization That Statement Is Against Declarant’s Own Interest  6.4
    • B.  Statement Is Not Required to Be Trustworthy  6.5
    • C.  Portions of Statement That Are Not Against Declarant’s Interest  6.6
    • D.  Declaration Against Pecuniary or Proprietary Interest  6.7
    • E.  Declaration Against Penal Interest  6.8
      • 1.  Threshold Requirement of Trustworthiness  6.9
      • 2.  Effect of Immunity and Privilege  6.10
      • 3.  Cannot Be “Testimonial” Hearsay  6.11
    • F.  Distinction Between Declaration Against Interest and Admission of Party  6.12
    • G.  Declaration Against Social Interest  6.13
    • H.  Statement May Not Be Inadmissible Opinion  6.14
    • I.  Declarant Unavailable as Witness  6.15
    • J.  Determination of Preliminary Facts  6.16
    • K.  Federal Law  6.17
  • III.  ILLUSTRATIONS OF RULES
    • A.  Objective Test for Declarations Against Interest  6.18
    • B.  Statement Was Against Penal Interests Because It Showed Knowledge of Crime  6.19
    • C.  Statement Was Against Penal Interests Because of Suspicious Conduct  6.20

7

Dying Declarations

  • I.  RULE: ADMISSIBILITY OF DECLARANT’S DYING DECLARATION  7.1
  • II.  JUDICIAL COMMENTS
    • A.  Personal Knowledge Required; Declarant Must Believe That Death Is Imminent  7.2
    • B.  Death of Declarant  7.3
    • C.  Possible Constitutional Limitations on Admissibility of Dying Declarations  7.4
    • D.  Foundational Facts Determined Under Evid C §403 or §405  7.5
    • E.  Evidence Admissible Before Jury to Dispute Dying Declaration  7.6
    • F.  Federal Law  7.7
  • III.  ILLUSTRATIONS OF RULE
    • A.  Declarant’s Belief in Impending Death  7.8
    • B.  Dying Declaration in Civil Action  7.9
    • C.  Dying Statement Relating Defendant’s Admission That He Caused Declarant’s Condition  7.10
    • D.  Conflicting Evidence on Declarant’s Sense of Imminent Death  7.11
    • E.  Trial Judge Disbelieves Evidence That Decedent Made Statement Offered as Dying Declaration  7.12

8

Former Testimony

  • I.  RULES
    • A.  Rule: “Former Testimony” Defined  8.1
    • B.  Rule: Former Testimony Offered Against Party to Former Proceeding  8.2
    • C.  Rule: Former Testimony Offered Against Party at Current Trial Who Was Not Party to Former Proceeding  8.3
    • D.  Rule: Former Testimony of Minor Child Offered in Dependency Proceeding  8.4
    • E.  Rule: Objections Available Concerning Former Testimony Offered Against Party to Former Proceeding  8.5
    • F.  Rule: Objections Available Concerning Former Testimony Offered Against Party at Current Trial Who Was Not Party to Former Proceeding  8.6
  • II.  JUDICIAL COMMENTS
    • A.  Meaning of “Former Testimony”  8.7
    • B.  Methods of Proving Former Testimony
      • 1.  Reporter’s Transcript of Testimony  8.8
      • 2.  Witness Recollection of Testimony  8.9
      • 3.  Recorded Testimony  8.10
    • C.  Former Testimony Offered Against Party to Former Proceeding  8.11
    • D.  Right and Opportunity to Have Cross-Examined Declarant  8.12
      • 1.  Opportunity to Cross-Examine Must Have Been Meaningful  8.13
      • 2.  Party Must Share Similar Interest and Motive  8.14
    • E.  Differences Between Evidence Code §§1291 and 1292  8.15
    • F.  Special Requirements in Criminal Cases  8.16
    • G.  Objections to Specific Questions  8.17
      • 1.  Objection to Form of Question  8.18
      • 2.  Objections Based on Competency and Privilege  8.19
    • H.  Federal Law  8.20
  • III.  ILLUSTRATIONS OF RULES
    • A.  Former Testimony May Be Admitted if Motivation for Former Cross-Examination Was Similar to That in Current Proceeding  8.21
    • B.  Former Testimony May Be Admitted Based on Genuine, Complete Memory Loss  8.22
    • C.  Former Testimony of Victim Permitted on Proper Showing of Unavailability  8.23

9

Judgments

  • I.  JUDGMENT OF CRIMINAL CONVICTION
    • A.  Rule: When Criminal Judgment Is Admissible  9.1
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Most Judgments Are Hearsay  9.2
      • 2.  Meaning of Phrase “Punishable as a Felony”  9.3
      • 3.  Meaning of Phrase “Final Judgment”  9.4
      • 4.  Felony Conviction Admissible in Civil Cases Only  9.5
      • 5.  Felony Conviction Based on Guilty Plea, Plea of Nolo Contendere, or Finding of Guilt After Not Guilty Plea  9.6
      • 6.  Conviction May Be Res Judicata or Constitute Collateral Estoppel  9.7
      • 7.  Federal Law  9.8
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Felony Conviction Offered in Civil Case Against Entity Not Party in Criminal Case  9.9
  • II.  JUDGMENT AGAINST PERSON ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY
    • A.  Rule: When Judgment Against Person Entitled to Indemnity Is Admissible  9.10
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Judgment Offered by Judgment Debtor Admissible as Exception to Hearsay Rule  9.11
  • III.  JUDGMENT DETERMINING LIABILITY OF THIRD PERSON
    • A.  Rule: When Judgment Determining Liability of Third Person Is Admissible  9.12
    • B.  Judicial Comment  9.13

10

Prior Inconsistent and Consistent Statements of Witness

  • I.  PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OF WITNESS
    • A.  Rule: Prior Inconsistent Statement of Witness  10.1
    • B.  Rule: Prior Inconsistent Statement of Unavailable Witness in Criminal Trial  10.2
    • C.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Prior Inconsistent Statement Admissible for Two Purposes  10.3
      • 2.  Examination of Witness About Prior Inconsistent Statement Not Absolute Precondition to Admissibility of Statement  10.4
      • 3.  Judge’s Discretion to Admit Prior Inconsistent Statement Without Giving Witness Opportunity to Explain or Deny Statement  10.5
      • 4.  Any Party May Offer Prior Inconsistent Statement in Evidence  10.6
      • 5.  Prior Inconsistent Statement Admissible as Evidence Against Criminal Defendant Without Violating Confrontation Rights  10.7
      • 6.  Types of Prior Inconsistent Statements  10.8
      • 7.  Prior Inconsistent Statement May Be Inconsistent With Either Implied or Express Testimony  10.9
      • 8.  Implied Testimony From Lack-of-Recollection Testimony Alone  10.10
      • 9.  Prior Inconsistent Statement in Form of Opinion  10.11
      • 10.  Does Prior Inconsistent Statement Make Admissible Other Portions of Statement Not Inconsistent With Witness’s Testimony?  10.12
      • 11.  Distinction Between Prior Inconsistent Statements of Witness and Hearsay Declarant  10.13
      • 12.  Even When Declarant Does Not Testify, Certain Inconsistent Statements Are Admissible for Their Truth Under Evid C §1294 in Criminal Cases  10.14
      • 13.  Federal Law  10.15
    • D.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Prior Inconsistent Statement Proved by Extrinsic Evidence  10.16
      • 2.  Prior Statement Not Inconsistent With Genuine Lack of Recollection  10.17
  • II.  PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT OF WITNESS
    • A.  Rule: Prior Consistent Statement of Witness  10.18
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Prior Consistent Statement Must Comply With Evid C §791 to Be Admissible  10.19
      • 2.  Prior Consistent Statement Admissible to Prove Truth of Facts Stated  10.20
      • 3.  Federal Law  10.21

11

Past Recollection Recorded

  • I.  RULES
    • A.  Rule: Admissibility of Past Recollection Recorded  11.1
    • B.  Rule: Admissibility of Writing as Exhibit  11.2
  • II.  JUDICIAL COMMENTS
    • A.  Six Requirements for Admissibility  11.3
    • B.  When Writing May Be Introduced Into Evidence  11.4
    • C.  Federal Law  11.5
  • III.  ILLUSTRATIONS OF RULES
    • A.  Informant’s Statement to Police Officer  11.6
    • B.  Sexual Assault Victim’s Statement to Police  11.7

12

Prior Identification

  • I.  REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIOR-IDENTIFICATION HEARSAY EXCEPTION
    • A.  Rule: Requirements for Admission Under Prior-Identification Exception to Hearsay Rule  12.1
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Witness’s Prior Identification May Be of Nonparty  12.2
      • 2.  In-Court Testimony Rules Apply to Prior Identification  12.3
      • 3.  Effect of Denial or Lack of Recollection  12.4
      • 4.  Constitutional Objections to Pretrial Identification Statement  12.5
      • 5.  Federal Law  12.6
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Witness Admits Making Pretrial Identification But Does Not Remember Person Identified  12.7
      • 2.  Witness Testifies to Making Pretrial Identification of Assailant’s Photograph  12.8
      • 3.  Witness Has No Recollection of Making Prior Identification of Defendant; Prosecution Offers Evidence of Witness’s Pretrial Identification  12.9
      • 4.  Witnesses Assist in Creating Composite Sketch  12.10
      • 5.  Witness’s Prior Inconsistent Statement of Identification of Defendant Is Not Admissible Under Hearsay Exception  12.11
  • II.  ADMISSIBILITY OF OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT
    • A.  Rule: Requirements for Admission of Out-of-Court Identification as Prior Inconsistent Statement  12.12
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Prior Identification May Be Prior Inconsistent Statement  12.13
      • 2.  Statement Admissible for Two Purposes, and May Concern Express or Implied Testimony  12.14
      • 3.  Prior Statement Usually Inadmissible if Witness Has No Recollection  12.15
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Prosecution Offers to Produce Evidence to Contradict Witness’s Lack of Recollection  12.16
  • III.  EVIDENCE OF OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION
    • A.  Rule: Out-of-Court Identification of Defendant May Be Sufficient to Support Conviction  12.17
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Possible Bases for Introducing Prior Identification  12.18
      • 2.  Out-of-Court Identification May Support Conviction if It Passes Substantial Evidence Test  12.19
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Witness’s Prior Inconsistent Statement of Identification of Defendant Offered to Contradict Witness’s Trial Testimony  12.20

13

Spontaneous and Contemporaneous Statements

  • I.  SPONTANEOUS STATEMENTS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Requirements for Spontaneous-Statement Exception  13.1
      • 2.  Rule: When Burden Shifts  13.2
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Spontaneous Statement Must Be Made Under Stress of Excitement Caused by Exciting Act  13.3
      • 2.  Nature of Acts Observed  13.4
      • 3.  Effect of Length of Time Between Act and Spontaneous Statement  13.5
      • 4.  Effect of Detailed Questioning and Spontaneous Statement  13.5A
      • 5.  Only Spontaneous Statements That Describe Exciting Acts Are Admissible  13.6
      • 6.  Applicability of Rules for Witness Testifying in Court  13.7
      • 7.  Federal Law  13.8
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Statement Made 40 Minutes After Event in Response to Question  13.9
      • 2.  Statement Made 2 Days After Event  13.10
      • 3.  Responses After Official Questioning May Be Found Spontaneous  13.10A
  • II.  CONTEMPORANEOUS STATEMENTS
    • A.  Rule: Requirements for Contemporaneous-Statement Exception  13.11
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Statement Makes Equivocal and Ambiguous Conduct More Understandable  13.12
      • 2.  Subsequent Statements Inadmissible  13.13
      • 3.  Federal Law  13.14
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Declarant’s Statement Accompanying Deed  13.15

14

Statements of State of Mind, Emotion, or Physical Sensation

  • I.  STATEMENT OF DECLARANT’S THEN-EXISTING STATE OF MIND, EMOTION, OR PHYSICAL SENSATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Admissible  14.1
      • 2.  Rule: Scope of “State of Mind, Emotion, or Physical Sensation”  14.2
      • 3.  Rule: Statement of Memory or Belief Not Admissible  14.3
      • 4.  Rule: Statement Not Admissible When Made Under Circumstances Indicating Lack of Trustworthiness  14.4
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Statement Can Be Both Direct and Circumstantial Evidence  14.5
      • 2.  Statement Must Be in Issue to Be Relevant  14.6
      • 3.  Exception Covers Wide Range of Elements  14.7
      • 4.  Exclusion Required When Statement Made Under Circumstances Indicating Lack of Trustworthiness  14.8
      • 5.  Exclusion of Statement of Past Fact Claimed to Concern State of Mind  14.9
      • 6.  Declarant’s Acts or Conduct Must Be Relevant to Issue in Case  14.10
      • 7.  Statement as Direct Assertion Versus Assertion of Other Facts  14.11
      • 8.  Federal Law  14.12
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Statement About Declarant’s Then-Existing State of Mind as Distinguished From Statement About Past Acts From Which One May Infer State of Mind  14.13
      • 2.  Defendant’s Past Statement of Then-Existing State of Mind as Circumstantial Evidence of Defendant’s Present State of Mind  14.14
      • 3.  Inadmissibility of Statement of Memory or Belief About Past Event  14.15
      • 4.  Trial Court’s Discretion in Deciding Trustworthiness of Statement  14.16
  • II.  STATEMENT OF DECLARANT’S PREVIOUSLY EXISTING STATE OF MIND, EMOTION, OR PHYSICAL SENSATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Admissibility of Statement When State of Mind, Emotion, or Physical Sensation an Issue  14.17
      • 2.  Rule: Statement Not Admissible When Made Under Circumstances Indicating Lack of Trustworthiness  14.18
      • 3.  Rule: Scope of “State of Mind, Emotion, or Physical Sensation”  14.19
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Requirement That Declarant Be Unavailable as Witness  14.20
      • 2.  Requirement That Declarant’s Past State of Mind Be Issue in Case  14.21
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Decedent’s Statement of Past State of Mind and Other Facts  14.22

15

Statements Concerning Wills and Claims Against Estates

  • I.  STATEMENT OF DECLARANT ABOUT OWN WILL
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Statement Admissible  15.1
      • 2.  Rule: Statement Must Be Trustworthy  15.2
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Justification for Rule; Definition of “Will”; Capacity  15.3
      • 2.  Federal Law  15.4
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Deceased Declarant’s Statement Offered in Action to Probate Lost Will  15.5
      • 2.  Effect of Deceased Declarant’s Conflicting Statements  15.6
  • II.  STATEMENT OF DECEDENT OFFERED IN ACTION ON CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Statement Admissible  15.7
      • 2.  Rule: Statement Must Be Trustworthy  15.8
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Justification for Rule  15.9
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Decedent’s Statement That He Never Reached Agreement With Plaintiff Offered in Action Against Decedent’s Estate  15.10
      • 2.  Decedent’s Statement That His Agent Never Reached Agreement With Plaintiff Offered in Action Against Decedent’s Estate  15.11
      • 3.  Decedent’s Statement That He Intended to Set Up Joint Tenancy Bank Account  15.12
      • 4.  Decedent’s Statement That His Agent Never Reached Agreement With Plaintiff Offered in Action Against Decedent’s Estate  15.13

16

Statements and Reputation About Family History

  • I.  DECLARANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT OWN FAMILY HISTORY
    • A.  Rule: Declarant’s Family History  16.1
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Declarant Must Be Unavailable as Witness  16.2
      • 2.  No Narrow Limitation on Scope of Facts of Family History  16.3
      • 3.  Declarant Need Not Have Personal Knowledge of Facts Asserted  16.4
      • 4.  Statement Not Admissible if Circumstances Show Lack of Trustworthiness  16.5
      • 5.  Federal Law  16.6
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Declarant’s Statement About Various Places of Residence Offered in Probate Proceeding  16.7
  • II.  DECLARANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT FAMILY HISTORY OF ANOTHER
    • A.  Rule: Family History of Another  16.8
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Family History of Another  16.9
      • 2.  Federal Law  16.10
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Statement of Nonrelative About Decedent Having Two Brothers  16.11
  • III.  REPUTATION IN FAMILY CONCERNING FAMILY HISTORY
    • A.  Rule: Reputation in Family  16.12
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Reputation in Family Concerning Family History  16.13
      • 2.  No Requirement That Hearsay Existed Before Dispute or That Circumstances Do Not Indicate Lack of Trustworthiness  16.14
      • 3.  Federal Law  16.15
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Statement of Reputation Offered to Prove Family History of Person Related by Marriage  16.16
  • IV.  REPUTATION IN COMMUNITY CONCERNING FAMILY HISTORY
    • A.  Rule: Community Reputation  16.17
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Community Reputation About Family History  16.18
      • 2.  Federal Law  16.19
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Community Reputation of Marriage Offered in Probate Proceeding  16.20
  • V.  CHURCH RECORDS CONCERNING FAMILY HISTORY
    • A.  Rule: Church Records  16.21
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Church Records  16.22
      • 2.  Federal Law  16.23
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Church’s Baptismal Record Offered to Prove Grandparent-Grandchild Relationship  16.24
  • VI.  MARRIAGE, BAPTISMAL, AND SIMILAR CERTIFICATES
    • A.  Rule: Marriage, Baptismal, and Similar Certificates  16.25
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Marriage, Baptismal, and Similar Certificates  16.26
      • 2.  Federal Law  16.27
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Baptismal Certificate Offered to Prove Grandparent-Grandchild Relationship  16.28

17

Dispositive Instruments and Ancient Writings

  • I.  RULES
    • A.  Rule: Dispositive-Instrument Hearsay Exception  17.1
    • B.  Rule: Ancient-Document Hearsay Exception  17.2
  • II.  JUDICIAL COMMENTS
    • A.  Recitals in Dispositive Instruments or Documents  17.3
    • B.  Recitals in Ancient Documents  17.4
    • C.  Federal Law  17.5
  • III.  ILLUSTRATIONS OF RULES
    • A.  Recital in Will  17.6
    • B.  Obituary Offered in Evidence  17.7
    • C.  Entry About Stock Purchase Made 35 Years Ago in Private Ledger  17.8
    • D.  Thirty-Year-Old Written Declarations  17.9
    • E.  Ancient Newspaper Articles  17.10

18

Miscellaneous Hearsay Exceptions

  • I.  COMMUNITY REPUTATION CONCERNING COMMUNITY HISTORY
    • A.  Rule: Community History  18.1
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Community Reputation  18.2
      • 2.  Federal Law  18.3
  • II.  COMMUNITY REPUTATION CONCERNING PUBLIC INTEREST IN PROPERTY
    • A.  Rule: Public Interest in Property  18.4
    • B.  Judicial Comment  18.5
  • III.  COMMUNITY REPUTATION CONCERNING BOUNDARY, OR CUSTOM AFFECTING LAND
    • A.  Rule: Reputation Concerning Boundary, or Custom Affecting Land  18.6
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Federal Law  18.7
  • IV.  DECLARANT’S STATEMENT CONCERNING BOUNDARY
    • A.  Rule: Statement Concerning Boundary  18.8
    • B.  Rule: Statement Must Be Trustworthy  18.9
  • V.  REPUTATION CONCERNING CHARACTER
    • A.  Rule: Reputation Concerning Character  18.10
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Reputation Concerning Character  18.11
      • 2.  Federal Law  18.12
  • VI.  COMMERCIAL LISTS AND OTHER PUBLISHED COMPILATIONS
    • A.  Rule: Published Compilations  18.13
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Commercial Lists and Other Compilations Prepared for Trade or Profession Are Inherently Trustworthy  18.14
      • 2.  Federal Law  18.15
  • VII.  TREATISES, BOOKS, MAPS, AND CHARTS USED TO PROVE FACTS OF GENERAL NOTORIETY AND INTEREST
    • A.  Rule: Treatises, Books, Maps, and Charts  18.16
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Books and Treatises Are Admissible to Prove Generally Accepted and Nondisputed Facts Only  18.17
      • 2.  Cross-Examination of Expert on Expert Opinion Based on Scientific, Technical, or Professional Publications  18.18
      • 3.  Federal Law  18.19
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Medical Treatises Not Within Hearsay Exception to Prove Facts of General Interest  18.20
  • VIII.  AFFIDAVITS, POLICE REPORTS, AND PROBATION REPORTS MADE ADMISSIBLE IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Exception to Hearsay Rule Is Created  18.21
      • 2.  Rule: Affidavits  18.22
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Affidavit, Certification, or Declaration Made Admissible as Exception to Hearsay Rule  18.23
      • 2.  Probation Reports Made Admissible by Statute in Dependency and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings  18.24
      • 3.  Police Reports and Probation Reports Are Admissible Hearsay in Probation Revocation Hearings  18.25
      • 4.  Hearsay From Qualified Law Enforcement Witnesses May Be Presented at Preliminary Hearings  18.26
      • 5.  Fresh Complaints of Victims of Sex Crimes Are Admissible Hearsay  18.27
      • 6.  Documentary Evidence Proffered on Predicate Offenses in Sexually Violent Predator Hearing May Be Admissible Hearsay  18.28
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Declaration From Attorney Investigator on Motion for New Trial on Ground of Jury Misconduct  18.29
      • 2.  Admissibility of Probation Reports in Sentence Enhancement Proceedings  18.30
      • 3.  Illustration of Rule: Simultaneous Translation by Bystander of Victim’s Extrajudicial Statements Not Additional Layer of Hearsay  18.30A
  • IX.  AFFIDAVIT TO PROVE TECHNIQUE USED IN TAKING BLOOD SAMPLES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Blood Samples  18.31
      • 2.  Rule: Affiant May Be Required to Attend  18.32
    • B.  Judicial Comment  18.33
  • X.  STATEMENT OF UNAVAILABLE DECLARANT IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST PARTY CAUSING UNAVAILABILITY IN CERTAIN FELONY CASES
    • A.  Rule: Statement Admissible in Certain Felony Cases  18.34
    • B.  Rule: Written Notice Required  18.35
    • C.  Rule: When Continuance Required  18.36
    • D.  Rule: How Ruling Made During Trial  18.37
    • E.  Rule: Procedures if Defendant Testifies  18.38
    • F.  Rule: Use of Defendant’s Testimony  18.39
    • G.  Rule: Double Hearsay  18.40
    • H.  Rule: Meaning of “Serious Felony”  18.41
    • I.  Federal Law  18.42
  • XI.  STATEMENT OF UNAVAILABLE DECLARANT IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST PARTY CAUSING UNAVAILABILITY IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL, OR JUVENILE CASES
    • A.  Rule: Statement Admissible in Civil, Criminal, and Juvenile Cases  18.42A
    • B.  Automatic Repeal Provision of Statute Removed  18.42B
  • XII.  STATEMENTS BY MINORS DESCRIBING CHILD ABUSE
    • A.  Rule: Criminal Prosecution Involving Child Abuse or Neglect  18.43
    • B.  Rule: Proponent of Minor’s Statement Must Inform Adverse Party of Intention to Offer Statement Before Proceedings  18.44
    • C.  Judicial Comment: Constitutionality of Evid C §1360  18.45
    • D.  Rule: Definitions of “Child Abuse” and “Child Neglect”  18.46
  • XIII.  STATEMENTS BY CHILD ABUSE VICTIMS MADE FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Statement of Child Abuse Victim Under 12 Admissible When Made for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment  18.47
      • 2.  Rule: Definitions of “Child Abuse” and “Child Neglect” for Purposes of Diagnosis  18.48
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Purpose of Evid C §1253  18.49
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Child Treated by Mother  18.50
      • 2.  Child Treated by Doctor  18.51
      • 3.  Child Describes Medical Condition to Police Officer  18.52
      • 4.  Child Describes Medical Condition to Paramedic  18.53
  • XIV.  CHILD DEPENDENCY HEARSAY EXCEPTION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Child’s Out-of-Court Statements on Sexual Abuse Admissible in Dependency Hearings Under Specified Conditions  18.54
      • 2.  Rule: Factors to Be Used to Determine Reliability of Statement  18.55
      • 3.  Rule: Effect of Child’s Incompetency to Testify on Admissibility of Hearsay Statement on Sexual Abuse in Dependency Proceeding  18.56
    • B.  Judicial Comment
      • 1.  Rationale for Common Law Hearsay Exception for Out-of-Court Child’s Statements in Dependency Proceedings Involving Alleged Abuse  18.57
      • 2.  Exception for Hearsay in Social Study May Obviate Need for Application of Child Dependency Hearsay Exception  18.58
  • XV.  STATEMENT OF VICTIM OF ACTUAL OR THREATENED PHYSICAL INJURY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Statement Describing Actual or Physical Injury Admissible  18.59
      • 2.  Rule: Criteria of Trustworthiness  18.60
      • 3.  Rule: Proponent of Statement Must Provide Advance Notice to Adverse Party  18.61
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Purpose/Constitutionality of Evid C §1370  18.62
      • 2.  Statement Is Admissible Even if Threat Is Ambiguous  18.63
      • 3.  Statement Must Be Made Under Circumstances Indicating Trustworthiness  18.64
      • 4.  Statement Must Be Made at or Near Time of Threat or Injury  18.65
      • 5.  Proponent Must Provide Advance Notice of Intention to Offer Statement and of Its Particulars  18.66
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Circumstances Indicating Trustworthiness  18.67
  • XVI.  STATEMENT OF ELDER OR DEPENDENT ADULT VICTIM OF CRIMINAL ABUSE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Statement Regarding Abuse Is Admissible  18.68
      • 2.  Rule: Prosecution Must Provide Advance Notice to Defendant  18.69
      • 3.  Rule: Court’s Determination of Witness’s Availability Is Made Outside of Jury’s Presence  18.70
      • 4.  Rule: Limitations on Hearings Under Evid C §1380 and on Admissibility and Publicity of Defendant’s Testimony  18.71
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Evid C §1380 Declared Unconstitutional  18.72
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Evidence Offered for Purpose other than Truth of the Matter Asserted not Hearsay  18.72A

19

Evidence: Definitions and Distinctions

  • I.  DISTINCTION BETWEEN “EVIDENCE” AND “INFERENCE”
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Evidence”  19.1
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Inference”  19.2
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence May Consist of Items Other Than Testimony and Material Objects  19.3
      • 2.  “Writing” as Evidence Goes Beyond Ordinary Concept of a Writing  19.4
      • 3.  Neither Presumption Nor Inference Is Evidence  19.5
      • 4.  For Inference to Lead to Finding of Fact, It Must Not Be Drawn From Mere Conjecture  19.6
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Unsworn Statements of District Attorney Held Not to Constitute Evidence  19.7
  • II.  DEFINITION OF “RELEVANT EVIDENCE”
    • A.  Rule: Definition of “Relevant Evidence”  19.8
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Relevant Evidence  19.9
      • 2.  Rulings on Relevancy  19.10
      • 3.  Federal Law  19.11
  • III.  DISTINCTION BETWEEN “DIRECT EVIDENCE” AND “CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE”
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Direct Evidence”  19.12
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Circumstantial Evidence”  19.13
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Circumstantial Evidence  19.14
      • 2.  Distinction Between Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Arises From Criminal Law  19.15
      • 3.  Testimonial Evidence May Be Both Direct and Circumstantial Evidence  19.16
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Both Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Involved in Witness’s Testimony of Seeing Certain Conditions  19.17
      • 2.  Circumstantial Evidence Offered to Prove That Defendant Was 10 Years Older Than Victim  19.18

20

Objections; Limited Admissibility; Rule of Completeness

  • I.  FORM AND TIMELINESS OF OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE; OFFERS OF PROOF; IN LIMINE MOTIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Objection Required  20.1
      • 2.  Rule: Correct Ground Required  20.2
      • 3.  Rule: Ruling Must Be Obtained  20.3
      • 4.  Rule: Reiteration Requirement  20.4
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Necessity of Making Appropriate and Timely Objection to Claim Error on Appeal  20.5
      • 2.  Appropriate and Timely Objections Required at Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment  20.6
      • 3.  Appropriate and Timely Objections Required at Hearing on Motion to Strike Under Anti-SLAPP Statute  20.7
      • 4.  Prerequisites to Claiming Error on Appeal for Exclusion of Admissible Evidence  20.8
      • 5.  Contents of Valid Offer of Proof  20.9
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Objection to Part of Expert Testimony  20.10
      • 2.  Nonspecific Objection  20.11
  • II.  LIMITED ADMISSIBILITY WHEN EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE AS TO ONLY ONE PARTY OR FOR ONLY ONE PURPOSE
    • A.  Rule: Limited Admissibility  20.12
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence May Be Admissible Concerning One Party or for One Purpose But Not Concerning Another Party or for Another Purpose  20.13
      • 2.  Trial Judge May Instruct Jury at Time Evidence Admitted  20.14
      • 3.  Use of Evid C §352 in Cases of Limited Admissibility  20.15
      • 4.  Federal Law  20.16
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Failure to Give Limiting Instruction on Evidence Used to Prosecute Codefendant Constitutes Error  20.17
  • III.  EVIDENCE OF REMAINDER OF ACT, DECLARATION, CONVERSATION, OR WRITING TO EXPLAIN PART ADMITTED
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: “Rule of Completeness”  20.18
      • 2.  Rule: When Related Matter Admissible  20.19
      • 3.  Rule: What Is Inadmissible  20.20
      • 4.  Rule: Answer to Letter Is Admissible  20.21
      • 5.  Rule: Only Part of Declaration or Conversation Heard  20.22
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Whole Introduced to Elucidate Part Introduced in Evidence  20.23
      • 2.  Only Relevant Portions of Remainder Are Admissible  20.24
      • 3.  Limitations on Admissibility  20.25
      • 4.  Federal Law  20.26
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Requirement That Remainder Address “Same Subject”  20.27

21

Relevancy: General Principles

Stephen G. Blitch

  • I.  ADMISSIBILITY OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Only Relevant Evidence Admissible  21.1
      • 2.  Rule: Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible  21.2
      • 3.  Rule: Relevant Evidence in Criminal Cases  21.3
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Only Relevant Evidence Admissible  21.4
      • 2.  Exclusion of Relevant Evidence Must Be Founded on Statutory or Constitutional Provision  21.5
      • 3.  Relevance in Criminal Cases  21.6
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Evidence of Benefits to State and Good Motive in Prosecution for Violation of Conflict of Interest Statute  21.7
      • 2.  Wiretap Evidence Admissible Although Obtained in Violation of Statute  21.8
      • 3.  Evidence of Jurors’ Subjective Reasoning Process  21.9
  • II.  ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OFFERED ON UNDISPUTED FACT
    • A.  Rule: Evidence Offered on Undisputed Fact Generally Inadmissible  21.10
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence Offered to Prove Essential But Undisputed Element of Proponent’s Case  21.11
      • 2.  Issue or Fact Not Clearly Undisputed  21.12
      • 3.  Prior Felony Convictions in Criminal Cases  21.13
      • 4.  Federal Law  21.14
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Stipulation of Defense to Part of Victim Impact Testimony  21.15
  • III.  GENERAL TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PROFFERED EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Evidence Relevant  21.16
      • 2.  Rule: Speculative Inferences  21.17
      • 3.  Rule: One Reasonable Inference Sufficient  21.18
      • 4.  Rule: Intermediate Facts  21.19
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Logic, Reason, Experience, and Common Sense Are Important Factors in Determining Relevancy  21.20
      • 2.  “Disputed Fact of Consequence” May Be Intermediate Fact as Well as Ultimate Fact in Action  21.21
      • 3.  Evidence Irrelevant if It Has Tendency to Prove Disputed Fact Only by Drawing Speculative Inferences From Such Evidence  21.22
      • 4.  Application of Relevancy Test to Single Items of Evidence  21.23
      • 5.  Effect on Relevancy of Evidence From Which May Be Drawn Irrelevant as Well as Relevant Inference of Fact  21.24
      • 6.  Irrelevancy Objections  21.25
      • 7.  Court’s Discretion; Evid C §352  21.26
      • 8.  Exclusion of Evidence of Immigration Status  21.26A
      • 9.  Importance of Precedent in Determining Relevancy  21.27
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Evidence That Witness Was Consuming Alcohol  21.28
      • 2.  Speculative Evidence Ruled Irrelevant  21.29
      • 3.  Evidence of Uncharged Misconduct Relevant to Issue of Doctor’s Subjective Awareness of Danger  21.30
  • IV.  RELEVANCY OF MATERIAL OBJECTS AND OTHER THINGS PRESENTED TO SENSES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Relevancy Test for Material Objects Same as That for Testimony  21.31
      • 2.  Rule: When Material Objects Have Tendency to Prove or Disprove Disputed Fact  21.32
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Test for Determining Relevancy of Material Objects  21.33
      • 2.  Material Objects May Be Relevant as Circumstantial Evidence or as Illustrative of Testimony  21.34
      • 3.  Relevancy of Weapons Found in Criminal Defendant’s Possession  21.35
      • 4.  Relevancy of Photographs, X Rays, Motion Pictures, Diagrams, and Maps  21.36
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Knives Owned by Defendant That Resembled Actual Weapons Used in Murder Held Admissible for Illustrative Purposes  21.37
      • 2.  Weapons Not Admissible for Illustrative Purposes When Similar Weapons Have Not Been Found in Defendant’s Possession  21.38
      • 3.  Knife Sets in Defendant’s Home Relevant to Show Defendant Had Access to Brand of Knife Found Near Crime Scene  21.39
  • V.  RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE OF EXPERIMENTS
    • A.  Rule: Relevancy of Experiments  21.40
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Substantial Similarity of Conditions  21.41
      • 2.  Trial Judge’s Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence of Experiments  21.42
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Experimental Evidence of Film to Reproduce Fire Conditions Ruled Admissible in Part  21.43
      • 2.  Sound Experiment Admissible to Assist Jury in Determining Whether Gunshots Were Fired  21.44
  • VI.  RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE OF NEW SCIENTIFIC TESTS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Evidence of New Scientific Test or Procedure  21.45
      • 2.  Rule: New Scientific Test Need Be Valid Only When Offered as Evidence  21.46
      • 3.  Rule: Correct Scientific Procedures Must Have Been Followed  21.47
      • 4.  Rule: Validation of New Scientific Test in Published Appellate Opinion Can Establish Future Precedent Until Change in Attitude of Scientific Community  21.48
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Medical Opinion Testimony Is Not Subject to Kelly Rule  21.49
      • 2.  Scientific Test, Procedure, or Device Must Be New  21.50
      • 3.  Use of Product Rule in Cold Hit Case Not Subject to Kelly Test  21.51
      • 4.  Evidence of Scientific Tests May Be Offered to Prove Existence or Nonexistence of Facts  21.52
      • 5.  Tests for Intoxication  21.53
      • 6.  Nalline Test for Narcotics  21.54
      • 7.  Radar Speedmeter for Determining Motor Vehicle Speed  21.55
      • 8.  Polygraph Evidence
        • a.  Criminal Cases  21.56
        • b.  Civil Cases  21.57
      • 9.  Truth Serum  21.58
      • 10.  Blood Tests to Establish Paternity or Nonpaternity  21.59
      • 11.  Dog-Tracking Evidence; Voiceprints Distinguished  21.60
      • 12.  Testimony of Witness Who Has Undergone Hypnosis
        • a.  Criminal Cases  21.61
        • b.  Civil Cases  21.62
      • 13.  Federal Law  21.63
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Segmentation Procedure Used on Photo to Identify Perpetrator in Mob Scene  21.64
      • 2.  Mycotoxin Antibody Test and Blood Serology Test for Exposure to Mold Mycotoxins  21.65
      • 3.  Genetic Marker Detection Test  21.66
      • 4.  Dog-Tracking Evidence Requires Kelly Hearing When Novel Device Was Used to Collect Scent  21.67
      • 5.  Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test  21.68
      • 6.  Newer Breath Test Technique to Determine Intoxication  21.69
      • 7.  Expert Opinion and Kelly Test  21.70
  • VII.  RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENTS OR EVENTS
    • A.  Rule: Admissibility of Prior or Subsequent Accident or Event  21.71
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Conditions Necessary to Establish Relevancy of Other Accidents  21.72
      • 2.  Proximity in Time Is Factor in Determining Relevancy  21.73
      • 3.  Evidence of Other Accidents Admissible in Defective-Product Strict-Liability Accident Case Without Substantial Similarity in Conditions  21.74
      • 4.  Discretion to Exclude Evidence of Prior or Subsequent Accidents  21.75
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Prior or Subsequent Event Other Than Accident  21.76
      • 2.  Sufficient Similarity of Conditions Between Prior Accidents and Accident in Question  21.77
      • 3.  Evidence of Earlier Settlement Agreements Against Different Defendants Inadmissible to Establish Damages  21.78
      • 4.  Evidence of Other Accidents Inadmissible if Intended Inference Is Speculative and Conjectural  21.79
  • VIII.  RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE OF SIMILAR ACCIDENTS
    • A.  Rule: Absence of Similar Accidents  21.80
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Period of Time Covered for Absence of Similar Accidents Is Factor in Determining Relevancy  21.81
      • 2.  Discretion to Exclude Evidence of Absence of Similar Accidents  21.82
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Evidence of Absence of Prior Similar Claims in Cases Involving Negligence or Strict Product Liability  21.83
  • IX.  RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE OFFERED TO ATTACK OR SUPPORT CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AND HEARSAY DECLARANTS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Evidence Is Relevant to Credibility When It Proves or Disproves Truthfulness  21.84
      • 2.  Rule: Credibility Evidence Not Required to Be Relevant to Prove Disputed Fact  21.85
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Credibility Evidence May Be Irrelevant to Prove Disputed Fact  21.86
      • 2.  Test of Relevance of Evidence Offered to Attack or Support Credibility of Witness  21.87
      • 3.  Major Categories of Questions on Cross-Examination of Witness Designed to Affect Credibility  21.88
      • 4.  Use of Evid C §352 in Cases of Doubtful Relevancy Concerning Credibility  21.89
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Evidence That Witness Testified Despite Fear of Recrimination Used to Support Credibility  21.90
      • 2.  Expert’s Testimony on Intimate Partner Battering for Credibility Purposes  21.91
      • 3.  Evidence That Witnesses Are Afraid to Testify  21.92

22

Court’s Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence Under Evid C §§352–352.1

Hon. William F. McDonald (Ret.)

  • I.  DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE RELEVANT EVIDENCE—IN GENERAL
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence  22.1
      • 2.  Rule: What Types of Relevant Evidence May Be Excluded  22.2
      • 3.  Rule: Basis for Relevancy  22.3
      • 4.  Rule: Record Should Reflect Court’s Exercise of Discretion  22.4
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Determining Strength of Probative Value of Evidence Against Degree of Harmful Effects  22.5
      • 2.  Factors in Determining Strength of Probative Value of Evidence  22.6
      • 3.  Due Process Considerations  22.7
      • 4.  Determining Prejudice  22.8
      • 5.  Importance of Trial Court’s Making Record  22.9
      • 6.  Making Objection Based on Evid C §352  22.10
      • 7.  Consideration in Criminal Case of Defense Evidence of Third-Person Culpability  22.11
      • 8.  Review of Trial Court’s Evid C §352 Ruling  22.12
      • 9.  Federal Law  22.13
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Crime Scene Photographs
        • a.  Photographs of Victim and Crime Scene Ruled Admissible in Homicide Case  22.14
        • b.  Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Admitting Autopsy and Crime Scene Photographs  22.15
      • 2.  Evidence of Third Party’s Motive for Crime Inadmissible Without Evidence Linking Third Party to Crime  22.16
      • 3.  Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Excluding Evidence of Jailhouse Witness Based on Credibility Analysis Only  22.17
      • 4.  Lay Opinion of Defendant’s Past Behavior Is Improperly Excluded Under Evid C §352  22.18
      • 5.  Evidence of Defendant’s Poverty to Show Motive and Intent  22.19
      • 6.  Evidence in Child Homicide Case That Codefendant Had History of Abusing Her Children  22.20
      • 7.  Evidence of Child’s Abuse by Mother Was Admissible in Case Charging Child Care Provider With Abuse Leading to Child’s Death  22.21
      • 8.  Documents Showing Inmate’s Prison Release Held Admissible to Substantiate Witness’s Testimony in Murder Case  22.22
      • 9.  Codefendant’s Guilty Plea to Robbery Charges  22.23
      • 10.  Expert’s Opinion on Reliability of Eyewitness Identification  22.24
      • 11.  Affirmative Defense  22.25
      • 12.  Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Excluding Environmental Sampling Data  22.26
  • II.  DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF VICTIM’S ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL ACTIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Excluding Victim’s Address and Phone Number  22.27
      • 2.  Rule: Defendant Retains Discovery Rights  22.28
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Repeal and Reenactment of Evid C §352.1  22.29
      • 2.  Court Must Balance Victim Protection Against Defendant’s Right to Cross-Examine  22.30

23

Use of Prior Convictions to Attack Credibility of Witness

Hon. William F. McDonald (Ret.)

  • I.  RULES
    • A.  Rule: Use of Prior Convictions to Impeach  23.1
    • B.  Rule: Choice of Law for Admitting Felony Convictions to Attack Credibility in Civil Cases  23.2
    • C.  Rule: Time When Prior Conviction Occurred  23.3
    • D.  Rule: Evid C §788 Restrictions on Felony Convictions Used to Impeach  23.4
    • E.  Rule: Additional Rules in Criminal Cases  23.5
    • F.  Rule: Using Evidence on Which Misdemeanor Conviction Based to Impeach  23.6
  • II.  JUDICIAL COMMENTS
    • A.  Proof of Prior Felony Conviction to Attack Credibility  23.7
    • B.  Juvenile Court Adjudications  23.8
    • C.  Ruling on Defendant’s Felony Convictions in Criminal Cases  23.9
    • D.  Otherwise Inadmissible Prior Convictions May Become Admissible  23.10
    • E.  Felony Conviction in Criminal Cases Must Be Crime of Moral Turpitude  23.11
    • F.  Most Felonies Will Be Considered as Felonies Involving Moral Turpitude  23.12
    • G.  Moral Turpitude Is Determined by Elements of Statute Rather Than Facts of Crime Itself  23.13
    • H.  Four Beagle Factors  23.14
    • I.  Circumstances to Be Used by Trial Court in Addition to Beagle Factors  23.15
    • J.  Consideration of Multiple Felony Convictions  23.16
    • K.  Federal Law  23.17
  • III.  ILLUSTRATIONS OF RULES
    • A.  Felony Used to Impeach Must Be Crime of Moral Turpitude
      • 1.  Child Endangerment Held Inadmissible to Impeach Defendant Because Not Crime of Moral Turpitude  23.18
      • 2.  Prior Conviction of Possessing Marijuana for Sale Admissible for Impeachment Purposes in Attempted Murder Case  23.19
      • 3.  Driving Under Influence With Three or More Convictions of Same Offense in Past 7 Years Is Crime of Moral Turpitude  23.20
    • B.  Application of Least Adjudicated Element Test to Prior  23.21
    • C.  Least Adjudicated Element Analysis of Prior Conviction for Corporal Punishment of Child  23.22
    • D.  Prior Recent Homicide Conviction to Impeach Defendant in Homicide Case  23.23
    • E.  Remote 20-Year-Old Prior Conviction of Witness in Homicide Case  23.24

24

Determination of Preliminary Facts: General Principles

  • I.  STANDARDS DETERMINING EXISTENCE OF PRELIMINARY FACT; DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: “Preliminary Fact” Defined  24.1
      • 2.  Rule: “Proffered Evidence” Defined  24.2
      • 3.  Rule: Burden of Proof for Determining Existence of Preliminary Fact  24.3
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  “Proffered Evidence” Distinguished From “Preliminary Fact”  24.4
      • 2.  Division of Labor Between Court and Jury  24.5
        • a.  Jury Decides if Evid C §403 Preliminary Fact Exists  24.6
        • b.  Judge Decides Other Preliminary Facts  24.7
      • 3.  Federal Law  24.8
  • II.  PRELIMINARY FACT DETERMINATION: IN OR OUT OF JURY’S PRESENCE AND HEARING
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Court Determines Admissibility of Confession in Criminal Case Out of Presence and Hearing of Jury  24.9
      • 2.  Rule: Discretion to Hold Other Hearings in or Out of Jury’s Presence  24.10
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Admissibility of Criminal Defendant’s Confession Heard Out of Jury’s Presence  24.11
      • 2.  Hearing on Admissibility of Evidence Other Than Confession May Be Conducted Either in or Out of Jury’s Presence  24.12
      • 3.  Federal Law  24.13
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Abuse of Discretion Not to Hold Hearing on Voluntariness of Criminal Confession Outside Jury’s Presence  24.14
      • 2.  No Voluntariness Hearing When No Specific Objection Made  24.15
  • III.  EXPRESS FINDING OF EXISTENCE OF PRELIMINARY FACTS NOT REQUIRED
    • A.  Rule: Express Finding Not Needed  24.16
    • B.  Judicial Comment  24.17

25

Determining Preliminary Facts Under Evid C §403: Relevancy, Personal Knowledge, Identity, and Authenticity

  • I.  OVERVIEW OF PRELIMINARY FACTS DECIDED UNDER EVID C §403
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Types of Preliminary Facts Decided Under Evid C §403  25.1
      • 2.  Rule: Proponent Has Burden of Producing Evidence of Preliminary Fact  25.2
      • 3.  Rule: Court Decides Whether There Is Sufficient Evidence of Preliminary Fact  25.3
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Role of Jury and Court  25.4
  • II.  ESTABLISHING PRELIMINARY FACT TO SUPPORT RELEVANCY OF PROFFERED EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rule: When Preliminary Fact Necessary to Establish Relevancy  25.5
    • B.  Judicial Comment: When Relevancy of Proffered Evidence Depends on Preliminary Fact  25.6
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Burden on Proponent to Prove Preliminary Fact Concerning Prior Crime  25.7
      • 2.  Proving Preliminary Facts to Establish Relevancy of Photographs Offered on Issue of Intent of Parties to Written Agreement  25.8
  • III.  ESTABLISHING WITNESS’S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING SUBJECT MATTER OF OWN TESTIMONY
    • A.  Rule: When Preliminary Fact Is Witness’s Personal Knowledge  25.9
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  When Witness Must Have Personal Knowledge of Facts  25.10
      • 2.  On Objection, Personal Knowledge Must Be Shown Before Witness May Testify  25.11
  • IV.  ESTABLISHING AUTHENTICITY OF WRITING
    • A.  Rule: When Preliminary Fact Is Authenticity of Writing  25.12
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Authenticity of Writing Is Necessary to Make Writing Admissible Evidence  25.13
      • 2.  Authority of Judge and Jury in Determining if Writing Has Been Authenticated  25.14
      • 3.  Authenticity of Exemplar and Qualifications of Witness to Express Opinion on Authenticity Decided Under Evid C §405  25.15
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Authenticity of Writing Disputed; Letter Bears Purported Signature of Maker  25.16
      • 2.  Authenticity of Writing Disputed; Conflicting Evidence on Issue  25.17
  • V.  ESTABLISHING IDENTITY OF DECLARANT OR ACTOR
    • A.  Rule: Preliminary Fact Is Identity of Declarant  25.18
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Identity of Particular Person as Declarant Necessary for Hearsay to Be Admissible  25.19
      • 2.  Proof That Particular Person Engaged in Conduct Is Question of Relevancy  25.20
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Identity of Defendant as Declarant Is Disputed  25.21
      • 2.  Authentication of Telephone Call as Coming From Particular Declarant  25.22
  • VI.  COURT HAS DISCRETION TO ADMIT PROFFERED EVIDENCE CONDITIONALLY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Evidence May Be Admitted Conditionally  25.23
      • 2.  Rule: No Discretion When No Personal Knowledge  25.24
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Discretion of Court to Admit Proffered Evidence Conditionally  25.25
      • 2.  Personal Knowledge Must Be Established Before Witness May Testify  25.26
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Proof Required of Witness’s Personal Knowledge  25.27
      • 2.  Conditional Admission of Evidence  25.27A
  • VII.  INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY REGARDING PRELIMINARY FACTS
    • A.  Rule: Instructions to Jury Regarding Preliminary Fact Determination  25.28
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  When Court Must Instruct Jury to Disregard Proffered Evidence  25.29
      • 2.  Preponderance of Evidence Is Normal Burden-of-Proof Standard  25.30
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Request to Instruct Jury to Disregard Evidence Unless Jury Finds Preliminary Fact  25.31

26

Determining Other Preliminary Facts Under Evid C §405

  • I.  PROCEDURES UNDER EVID C §405
    • A.  Rule: Preliminary Fact Determinations Under Evid C §405  26.1
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Judge’s Role Under Evid C §405 Differs From Role Under Evid C §403  26.2
      • 2.  No Clear-Cut Test for Determining Whether Evid C §403 or §405 Governs  26.3
      • 3.  Judge Decides Who Has Burden of Proving Preliminary Fact  26.4
        • a.  Determining Which Party Has Burden of Proof on Preliminary Facts  26.5
        • b.  Degree of Burden of Proof  26.6
        • c.  Effect of Failure to Carry Burden of Proof  26.7
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Witness’s Competency and Personal Knowledge Disputed  26.8
      • 2.  Judge Decides Preliminary Fact of Whether Writing Is Integrated  26.9
      • 3.  Error for Trial Court to Determine Existence of Preliminary Fact Under Evid C §405 When Fact Decided Is Question for Jury  26.10
  • II.  TYPICAL PRELIMINARY FACT ISSUES UNDER EVID C §405
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: List of Typical Preliminary Fact Issues, Burden of Proof, and Standard of Proof  26.11
        • a.  Admissions Made During Settlement  26.12
        • b.  Secondary Evidence Rule  26.13
        • c.  Confessions and Admissions  26.14
        • d.  Disqualification or Incompetency of Potential Witness  26.15
        • e.  Evidence Obtained by Search Without Warrant  26.16
        • f.  Writing Exemplar for Comparison With Questioned Writing  26.17
        • g.  In-Court Identification of Defendant  26.18
        • h.  Lay Opinion Evidence on Handwriting  26.19
        • i.  Lay Opinion Evidence on Person’s Sanity  26.20
        • j.  Prior Felony Conviction  26.21
        • k.  Privileges  26.22
        • l.  Expert Witness Qualification  26.23
      • 2.  Rule: Hearsay Preliminary Facts Decided Under Evid C §405  26.24
        • a.  Judge Decides Whether Statement Is Admissible Under Hearsay Exception  26.25
        • b.  Statement’s Proponent Establishes Requirements of Hearsay Exception  26.26
    • B.  Judicial Comments  26.27
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Claimant of Privilege Usually Has Burden (Marital Communications Privilege)  26.28
      • 2.  Preliminary Facts for Hearsay Exception (Declaration Against Penal Interest)  26.29
  • III.  INSTRUCTING JURY REGARDING PRELIMINARY FACTS DETERMINED UNDER EVID C §405
    • A.  Rule: Instruction to Jury Concerning Evid C §405  26.30
    • B.  Judicial Comment  26.31
  • IV.  INTRODUCING EVIDENCE FOR WEIGHT OR CREDIBILITY PURPOSES
    • A.  Rule: Same Evidence May Be Introduced to Establish Credibility That Was Used to Establish Preliminary Fact  26.32
    • B.  Judicial Comment  26.33

27

Competency and Qualification of Witnesses

  • I.  STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR COMPETENCY AND QUALIFICATION
    • A.  Rule: Witness Is Presumed Competent and Qualified Absent Statutory Ground for Disqualification  27.1
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Statutory Ground Required to Render Person Incompetent as Witness  27.2
      • 2.  Federal Law  27.3
  • II.  MENTAL INCAPACITY OF WITNESS; GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Witness Is Incompetent  27.4
      • 2.  Rule: Burden on Party Objecting to Witness’s Competency  27.5
      • 3.  Rule: Judge May Reserve Ruling in Proceeding Outside Jury’s Presence  27.6
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence Code §701 Disqualification Differs From Personal Knowledge Requirement of Evid C §702  27.7
      • 2.  Children and Persons With Mental Impairment Can Be Competent Witnesses  27.8
      • 3.  Previously Hypnotized Witness  27.9
      • 4.  Objecting Party Must Show Incompetence of Witness  27.10
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Evidence of Witness’s Memory Problems Caused by Drug Use  27.11
      • 2.  Burden on Objecting Party to Convince Judge That Witness Is Incompetent  27.12
  • III.  REQUIREMENT OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECT MATTER OF TESTIMONY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Personal Knowledge Usually Required  27.13
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Personal Knowledge”  27.14
      • 3.  Rule: If Objection Raised on Lack of Personal Knowledge, Proof of Personal Knowledge Required Before Witness May Testify  27.15
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Knowledge Gained From Hearsay Statement of Another Is Not Personal Knowledge  27.16
      • 2.  On Objection to No Personal Knowledge, No Conditional Admission  27.17
      • 3.  Effect of “Defective” Perception or Memory  27.18
      • 4.  Federal Law  27.19
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Showing of Personal Knowledge Required Before Witness May Testify  27.20
      • 2.  Previously Hypnotized Witness in Civil Case  27.21
      • 3.  Averment on Information and Belief Does Not Show Personal Knowledge  27.22
  • IV.  OTHER STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATIONS: JUDGES, JURORS, AND ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Judge as Witness at Trial Over Which Judge Is Presiding  27.23
      • 2.  Rule: Judge as Witness at Subsequent Trial  27.24
      • 3.  Rule: Juror as Witness  27.25
      • 4.  Rule: Attorney as Witness Controlled by Rules of Professional Conduct  27.26
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Restrictions on Judge as Witness at Trial Over Which Judge Is Presiding  27.27
      • 2.  Competence of Attorney to Testify at Trial at Which Attorney Is Counsel for Party  27.28
      • 3.  Federal Law  27.29
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Judge Held Competent and Qualified to Testify at Subsequent Criminal Trial  27.30
      • 2.  Arbitrator Cannot Testify About Mental Processes in Reaching Decision  27.31

28

Method and Scope of Examination of Witnesses

Hon. Ken M. Kawaichi (Ret.)

  • I.  PHASES IN EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definitions of Direct, Cross-, Redirect, and Recross-Examination  28.1
      • 2.  Rule: Order of Questioning Witness  28.2
      • 3.  Rule: Constitutional Basis for Cross-Examination  28.3
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Phases of Examination  28.4
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Minor Children Testifying Outside of Parents’ Presence in Dependency Proceeding  28.5
      • 2.  Witness With Physical Disability  28.6
  • II.  COMMON LIMITATIONS ON EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Testimony Elicited Through Questions  28.7
      • 2.  Rule: Court Must Exercise Control Over Questions  28.8
      • 3.  Rule: Common Objections to Questions  28.9
      • 4.  Rule: Examination of Witness Who Is Under Age 14 or Dependent Person With Substantial Cognitive Impairment  28.10
      • 5.  Rule: Leading Questions of Witness Who Is Under Age 10 or Dependent Person With Substantial Cognitive Impairment  28.11
      • 6.  Rule: Court Must Appoint Interpreter or Translator as Required by Evid C §§752–756  28.11A
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Impermissible Questions; Appropriate Objections  28.12
      • 2.  Trial Judge’s Discretion Under Evid C §765  28.13
  • III.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED
    • A.  Rule: Question Asked and Answered  28.14
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Asked and Answered  28.15
      • 2.  Distinction Between Direct and Cross-Examination  28.16
      • 3.  Having Reporter Read Back Question and Answer  28.17
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Repetitive Question on Direct Examination  28.18
      • 2.  Repetitive Question on Cross-Examination  28.19
  • IV.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION IS UNCERTAIN, AMBIGUOUS, OR UNINTELLIGIBLE
    • A.  Rule: Uncertain, Ambiguous, or Unintelligible Question  28.20
    • B.  Judicial Comment  28.21
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Uncertain, Ambiguous, or Unintelligible Question  28.22
  • V.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION IS COMPOUND
    • A.  Rule: Compound Question  28.23
    • B.  Judicial Comment  28.24
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Question Uses Disjunctive “or” Between Alternatives  28.25
      • 2.  Question Uses Conjunctive “and” to Unite Alternatives  28.26
  • VI.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION IS TOO GENERAL OR CALLS FOR NARRATIVE ANSWER
    • A.  Rule: Question Too General or Calls for Narrative Answer  28.27
    • B.  Judicial Comment  28.28
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Question Calling for Narrative Answer  28.29
  • VII.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION MISSTATES EVIDENCE OR MISQUOTES TESTIMONY
    • A.  Rule: Question Misstates Evidence or Misquotes Testimony  28.30
    • B.  Judicial Comment  28.31
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Cross-Examiner’s Question Misstates Testimony of Witness Given on Direct Examination  28.32
  • VIII.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION IS LEADING
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Leading Question Defined  28.33
      • 2.  Rule: When Leading Questions Permitted  28.34
      • 3.  Rule: Circumstances That Permit Leading Questions on Direct or Redirect Examination  28.35
      • 4.  Rule: Circumstances That Preclude Leading Questions on Cross- or Recross-Examination  28.36
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Statutory Regulation of Leading Questions  28.37
      • 2.  Question Calling for Yes or No Answer as Leading Question  28.38
      • 3.  Court’s Discretion to Vary Standard Rules on Leading Questions  28.39
      • 4.  Leading Questions to Child Under Age 10 and to Special Classes of Dependent Persons in Prosecution for Crimes Against Children, Sexual Assault, or Criminal Neglect  28.40
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Question on Direct Examination  28.41
  • IX.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION IS ARGUMENTATIVE
    • A.  Rule: Argumentative Question  28.42
    • B.  Judicial Comment  28.43
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Witness Asked Why Later Recollection Is Better Than Recollection Closer to Events  28.44
      • 2.  Witness Asked Which of Two Inconsistent Statements Is True  28.45
  • X.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION UNDULY HARASSES OR EMBARRASSES WITNESS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Objection to Unduly Harassing or Embarrassing Question  28.46
      • 2.  Rule: Judge’s Sua Sponte Obligation  28.47
      • 3.  Rule: Witness Who Is Under Age 14 and Witness Who Is Dependent Person With Substantial Cognitive Impairment  28.48
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Protecting Witness From Undue Harassment or Embarrassment  28.49
  • XI.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rule: Question Assumes Fact Not in Evidence  28.50
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Question Cannot Assume That Fact Exists When No Evidence Has Been Introduced to Establish That Fact  28.51
      • 2.  No Difference Between Direct and Cross-Examination Regarding Questions That Assume Facts Not in Evidence  28.52
      • 3.  Conditional Admission of Evidence  28.53
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Question on Cross-Examination Assumes Existence of Fact Not in Evidence  28.54
  • XII.  OBJECTION THAT QUESTION CALLS FOR SPECULATION OR CONJECTURE
    • A.  Rule: Question Calls for Speculation or Conjecture  28.55
    • B.  Judicial Comment  28.56
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Question to Lay Witness About Number of Meetings  28.57
      • 2.  Question to Expert Witness About Experiments to Determine Whether Death Was Accidental  28.58
  • XIII.  MOTION TO STRIKE NONRESPONSIVE ANSWER
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Nonresponsive Answer  28.59
      • 2.  Rule: Court’s Discretion  28.60
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Witness Required to Testify by Giving Responsive Answers  28.61
      • 2.  Trial Court’s Discretion in Granting Motion to Strike Nonresponsive Answer  28.62
      • 3.  Answer May Be Responsive Without Conforming to Wording Generally Used in Reply to Particular Type of Question  28.63
  • XIV.  EXAMINING WITNESS CONCERNING WRITING
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Writing Need Not Be Shown to Witness  28.64
      • 2.  Rule: Procedures When Writing Shown to Witness  28.65
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Witness May Be Questioned Concerning Writing Without Being Shown Writing  28.66
      • 2.  Application of Secondary Evidence Rule  28.67
      • 3.  Right of Inspection by All Parties Once Witness Is Shown Writing  28.68
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Witness Questioned About Deposition Without Being Shown Transcript  28.69
      • 2.  Secondary-Evidence-Rule Objection Made  28.70
  • XV.  EXAMINING WITNESS CONCERNING PRIOR ORAL OR WRITTEN INCONSISTENT STATEMENT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Examiner Not Required to Disclose Information Concerning Statement  28.71
      • 2.  Rule: When Examiner Seeks to Introduce Extrinsic Evidence of Statement  28.72
    • B.  Illustration of Rules: Questioning Witness About Prior Inconsistent Statement Without Revealing Circumstances  28.73
  • XVI.  PRODUCTION OF WRITING USED BY WITNESS TO REFRESH MEMORY OR RECOLLECTION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Producing Writing That Refreshed Recollection  28.74
      • 2.  Rule: Use of Writing at Trial  28.75
      • 3.  Rule: Striking Witness’s Testimony  28.76
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Adverse Party Entitled to Inspect Writing; Judge Determines Whether Witness Used Writing to Refresh Recollection  28.77
      • 2.  Writing Used to Refresh Recollection Need Not Be Prepared by Witness or Near Time of Events Involved  28.78
      • 3.  Only Adverse Party May Offer in Evidence Writing Used to Refresh Recollection  28.79
      • 4.  Writing Used or Sought to Be Used to Refresh Recollection Should Not Be Read Aloud Before Jury  28.80
      • 5.  Attorney-Client Privilege May Preclude Inspection of Writing  28.81
      • 6.  Federal Law  28.82
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Witness Refuses to Produce Writing Used to Refresh Recollection  28.83
      • 2.  Witness Refreshes Recollection From Memorandum Made by Wife 1 Year After Witness Observed Accident  28.84
      • 3.  Traffic Accident Report Used by Investigating Officer to Refresh Recollection  28.85
  • XVII.  SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESS OTHER THAN TO ATTACK CREDIBILITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Scope of Cross-Examination Other Than to Attack Credibility  28.86
      • 2.  Rule: No Cross-Examination on Irrelevant or Otherwise Inadmissible Matter  28.87
      • 3.  Rule: Prejudicial Questions  28.88
      • 4.  Rule: Striking Direct Testimony for Refusal to Answer Questions on Cross-Examination  28.89
      • 5.  Rule: Witness May Not Cross-Examine Another Witness  28.90
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Basic Purposes of Cross-Examination  28.91
      • 2.  Restrictive Rule of Cross-Examination of Witness; Exception for Impeachment  28.92
      • 3.  Determining Scope of Direct Examination  28.93
      • 4.  No Right of Cross-Examination on Irrelevant or Otherwise Inadmissible Matter  28.94
      • 5.  Court’s Discretion to Permit Cross-Examiner to Ask Noncriminal Defendant Questions That Exceed Scope of Direct Examination  28.95
      • 6.  Good Faith Requirement Imposed on Prosecutor Concerning Matters That Would Constitute Substantial Prejudice to Defendant  28.96
      • 7.  Witness’s Failure to Answer Questions on Cross-Examination May Justify Striking Testimony  28.97
      • 8.  Federal Law  28.98
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Cross-Examination of Criminal Defendant About Employment  28.99
      • 2.  No Cross-Examination of Witness on Irrelevant Subject, Even Though Testified to on Direct  28.100
      • 3.  Cross-Examination on Inadmissible Matter Introduced by Witness’s Testimony on Direct Allowed to Avoid Prejudice  28.101
      • 4.  Cross-Examination of Defendant Who Impliedly Denies Guilt on Direct  28.102
  • XVIII.  SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION TO ATTACK WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Scope of Cross-Examination  28.103
      • 2.  Rule: Limit on Prejudicial Questions  28.104
      • 3.  Rule: When No Right to Cross-Examine on Matters Beyond Scope of Direct  28.105
      • 4.  Rule: Answer Beyond Scope of Cross-Examiner’s Question  28.106
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Matters Commonly Inquired Into in Attacking Witness’s Credibility  28.107
      • 2.  Cross-Examination to Attack Credibility When Matter Cannot Be Proved Independently of Witness’s Answer on Cross-Examination  28.108
      • 3.  Cross-Examination Questions to Attack Credibility Must Be Asked in Good Faith  28.109
      • 4.  Failure to Object to Cross-Examiner’s Question on Irrelevant Collateral Matter Does Not Allow Cross-Examiner to Contradict Witness’s Answer by Introducing Proof to Contrary  28.110
      • 5.  No Right to Cross-Examine Witness on Matter Neither Within Scope of Direct Examination Nor Relevant to Attack Witness’s Credibility  28.111
      • 6.  Defendant Has No Right to Cross-Examine Prosecution Witness on Speculative Theory Prejudicial to Prosecution  28.112
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witness About Witness’s Hope of Leniency on Parole Violation  28.113
      • 2.  Cross-Examination of Witness About Narcotics Use Offered to Show Faulty Observation and Recollection  28.114
      • 3.  Cross-Examination About Prior Mistakes in Identification and Recollection Offered to Attack Witness’s Capacity to Observe and Remember  28.115
      • 4.  Question on Cross-Examination to Elicit Answer on Irrelevant Matter That Can Be Contradicted by Extrinsic Proof  28.116
      • 5.  Cross-Examination of Witness About Employment Not Relevant to Attack Credibility  28.117
  • XIX.  PROCEDURES REGARDING EXAMINATION PHASES AND PARTIES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: One Phase Ends Before Next Begins  28.118
      • 2.  Rule: When Succeeding Phase May Be Postponed  28.119
      • 3.  Rule: When Phase May Be Interrupted  28.120
      • 4.  Rule: Cross-Examination When There Are Several Parties to Action  28.121
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Each Phase in Examination of Witness Must Be Completed Before Succeeding Phase Begins  28.122
      • 2.  Court’s Discretion to Permit Examination of Witness on Matter Beyond Scope of Previous Examination  28.123
      • 3.  Limits on Cross-Examination of Criminal Defendant  28.124
      • 4.  Rules of Direct Examination Apply to Cross-Examination of Witness by Party Not Adverse to Party Calling Witness  28.125
      • 5.  Cross-Examination of Noncriminal Defendant May Be Postponed Until After Another Witness Testifies  28.126
  • XX.  REEXAMINATION OF WITNESS BY SAME EXAMINING PARTY
    • A.  Rule: Reexamination of Witness  28.127
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Reexamination of Witness on Same Subject by Party Is Generally Prohibited  28.128
      • 2.  Court’s Discretion to Permit Party to Reexamine Witness on Same Subject  28.129
      • 3.  Party’s Reexamination of Witness to Cover New Matter  28.130
  • XXI.  CALLING AND EXAMINING ADVERSE PARTY OR WITNESS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Calling Adverse Witness in Civil Case  28.131
      • 2.  Rule: Order of Questioning Adverse Witness in Civil Case  28.132
      • 3.  Rule: Questioning Adverse Party  28.133
      • 4.  Rule: Questioning Person Identified With Party and Called as Adverse Witness  28.134
      • 5.  Rule: Definition of “Person Identified With Party”  28.135
      • 6.  Rule: Parties Represented by Same Counsel  28.136
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Calling Adverse Party or Nonparty Identified With Adverse Party and Asking Leading Questions  28.137
      • 2.  Time During Trial When Adverse Party or Nonparty Identified With Adverse Party May Be Called as Witness  28.138
      • 3.  Calling Party Need Not Announce Calling Witness Under Evid C §776  28.139
      • 4.  Definition of “Person Identified With Party” Allows Some to Qualify on the Basis of Past Status  28.140
      • 5.  Adverse Party May Not Be Cross-Examined With Leading Questions by Own Counsel or by Counsel for Party Not Adverse to Party-Witness  28.141
      • 6.  When Leading Questions Are Permitted on Cross-Examination of Nonparty Adverse Witness  28.142
      • 7.  Court’s Discretion to Vary Evid C §776 Rules on Permissibility of Leading Questions on Cross-Examination of Nonparty-Witness  28.143
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Defendant Seeks to Cross-Examine Former Employee With Leading Questions  28.144
      • 2.  Employer Sued by Employee Seeks to Cross-Examine Coemployee-Witness With Leading Questions  28.145
  • XXII.  COURT’S POWER TO QUESTION AND CALL WITNESSES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Court May Question Witness Called by Party  28.146
      • 2.  Rule: Court May Call and Question Witnesses  28.147
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Court’s Power to Call Lay and Expert Witnesses  28.148
      • 2.  Federal Law  28.149
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Judge Calls Witness  28.150
  • XXIII.  RECALL OF WITNESS
    • A.  Rule: Recall of Witness  28.151
    • B.  Judicial Comment  28.152
  • XXIV.  EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Exclusion of Witnesses  28.153
      • 2.  Rule: Penalties for Violation of Court’s Witness-Exclusion Order  28.154
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Trial Judge Has Broad Discretion to Determine Whether to Exclude Witness  28.155
      • 2.  Exclusion of Expert Witness While Another Expert Is Testifying  28.156
      • 3.  Use of Contempt and Preclusion From Testifying as Penalties for Violating Order Excluding Witnesses  28.157
      • 4.  In Specified Cases, Minor Child Victim or Elder or Dependent Adult May Be Accompanied on Witness Stand by Person of Witness’s Choice  28.158
      • 5.  Federal Law  28.159

29

Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Witnesses

  • I.  GENERAL RULES CONCERNING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE TO ATTACK OR SUPPORT WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Credibility Evidence Is Relevant to Attack Testimony if It Concerns Untruthfulness  29.1
      • 2.  Rule: Credibility Evidence Is Relevant to Support Testimony if It Concerns Truthfulness  29.2
      • 3.  Rule: Matters Considered in Determining Credibility  29.3
      • 4.  Rule: Court May Consider Evid C §352 When Ruling on Credibility Evidence  29.4
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Matters That May Be Considered in Determining Witness’s Credibility; Evid C §352  29.5
      • 2.  Statutory Prohibitions Against Evidence Otherwise Relevant to Witness’s Credibility  29.6
      • 3.  Proof by Examination of Witness or by Extrinsic Evidence  29.7
      • 4.  No All-Inclusive List of Usable Matters Affecting Witness’s Credibility  29.8
      • 5.  Effect of Proposition 8 in Criminal Cases  29.9
      • 6.  Federal Law  29.10
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Defense Witness’s Failure to Give Police Exculpatory Information  29.11
      • 2.  Secondhand Testimony of Victim’s Demeanor at Prior Hearing   29.11A
  • II.  PARTY MAY ATTACK CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS CALLED BY THAT PARTY
    • A.  Rule: Who May Attack Credibility  29.12
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Calling Party May Attack Witness’s Credibility  29.13
      • 2.  Noncalling Party May Support Witness Whose Credibility Is Attacked  29.14
      • 3.  Federal Law  29.15
  • III.  WITNESS’S IMPAIRED CAPACITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Credibility Issues  29.16
      • 2.  Rule: Mental or Emotional Stability  29.17
      • 3.  Rule: Limit on Psychiatric or Psychological Exam in Criminal Case  29.18
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence of Faulty Observation or Recollection During Cross-Examination  29.19
      • 2.  Impaired Ability to Perceive or Remember  29.20
      • 3.  Evidence of Alcoholism or Drug Addiction as Proof of Impaired Capacity; Evidence of Habit  29.21
      • 4.  Cross-Examination on Witness’s Mental or Emotional Instability  29.22
      • 5.  Psychiatric Examinations  29.23
      • 6.  Admissibility of Psychiatric Testimony  29.24
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Evidence That Witness to Fight Habitually Drank Particular Amount of Alcohol Each Night  29.25
      • 2.  Medical Testimony That Witness’s Chronic Drinking Caused Brain Impairment  29.26
      • 3.  Medical Examination of Seemingly Intoxicated Victim-Witness  29.27
  • IV.  EVIDENCE OF WITNESS’S CHARACTER—WHEN LIMITED TO TRAITS OF DISHONESTY AND HONESTY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Character Evidence Relevant to Credibility  29.28
      • 2.  Rule: Any Party May Support or Attack Credibility  29.29
      • 3.  Rule: In Civil Cases Credibility May Be Supported Only After It Has Been Attacked  29.30
      • 4.  Rule: Types of Character Evidence That May Be Used in Civil Cases  29.31
      • 5.  Rule: Character Evidence in Criminal Cases  29.32
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Only Character Traits of Honesty or Truthfulness or Their Opposites Can Support or Attack Credibility in Civil Cases  29.33
      • 2.  Character Traits on Credibility Generally Not Provable by Specific Instances of Witness’s Conduct  29.34
      • 3.  Felony Conviction Admissible to Attack Credibility Despite Being Specific Instance of Conduct; Misdemeanors  29.35
      • 4.  Federal Law  29.36
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Evidence of Extramarital Affair in Criminal Prosecution  29.36A
  • V.  SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF WITNESS’S CONDUCT USED AS RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Specific Instances of Conduct Inadmissible to Prove Witness Has Particular Character Trait  29.37
      • 2.  Rule: Specific Instances of Conduct Admissible to Attack Credibility  29.38
      • 3.  Rule: Specific Instances of Conduct to Prove Issue Other Than Character Trait  29.39
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Instances of Witness’s Conduct Admissible on Credibility if Relevant Other Than as Tending to Prove Character Trait  29.40
      • 2.  Exception for Felony Conviction as Specific Instance of Witness’s Conduct Relevant Only as Tending to Prove Character Trait  29.41
      • 3.  Evidence of Specific Instances of Conduct in Sex Cases  29.42
      • 4.  Reasons for Discovery of Peace Officer’s Prior Acts of Violence  29.43
      • 5.  Federal Law  29.44
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Witness’s Slashing of Tires on Police Cars Offered to Prove Bias Against Police  29.45
      • 2.  Evidence That Defendant Had Shot Himself Used to Impeach His Testimony That He Had Never Seen Anyone Shot  29.46
      • 3.  Party Tries to Impeach Witness With Arrests on Misdemeanor and Felony Charges  29.47
      • 4.  Evidence Admissible That Rape Victim Had Falsely Accused Others of Rape  29.48
  • VI.  BIAS, INTEREST, REASON TO LIE, OR OTHER MOTIVE TO ATTACK CREDIBILITY
    • A.  Rule: Evidence of Bias, Interest, or Reason to Lie  29.49
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Facts of Bias or Prejudice to Attack Credibility of Witness  29.50
      • 2.  Specific Instances of Conduct to Establish Bias or Improper Motive Not Precluded by Evid C §787  29.51
      • 3.  Statements or Acts of Witness Proffered to Show Bias or Prejudice Must Not Be Too Equivocal  29.52
      • 4.  Financial or Other Interest of Witness That Causes Witness to Favor Party  29.53
      • 5.  Motive to Fabricate That May Cause Untruthful Testimony  29.54
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Cross-Examination on Prior Arrests to Show Bias Against Police Officer Party  29.55
      • 2.  Filing of Prior Law Suit Against Police to Show Bias in Criminal Case  29.56
      • 3.  Similar Opinion by Defense Expert in Another Criminal Case  29.57
      • 4.  Compensation for Testifying  29.58
      • 5.  Racial Bias in Juvenile Court Proceeding  29.59
      • 6.  Witness’s Noncitizen Status  29.60
      • 7.  Evidence to Justify Witness’s Bias Is Inadmissible to Support Credibility  29.61
  • VII.  PROVING SOME PORTION OF WITNESS’S TESTIMONY TO BE FALSE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Extrinsic Proof to Impeach  29.62
      • 2.  Rule: Evid C §352 Applies to Admissibility of Extrinsic Proof  29.63
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Limitations on Rule That Evidence Is Admissible to Prove Untrue Part of Witness’s Testimony; “Opening the Door”  29.64
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Use of Plaintiff’s Prior Misdemeanor Conviction in Civil Suit  29.65
      • 2.  Use of Physician-Defendant’s Prior Misdemeanor Conviction in Civil Suit  29.66
  • VIII.  USING WITNESS’S PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION TO ATTACK CREDIBILITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Introducing Evidence of Prior Felony Conviction  29.67
      • 2.  Rule: Good Faith Required in Questioning Witness About Prior Conviction  29.68
      • 3.  Rule: Limited Questions Permitted on Felony Conviction  29.69
      • 4.  Rule: When Questions Allowed on Details of Conviction  29.70
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Limitations on Permissible Details of Felony Conviction  29.71
      • 2.  Good Faith Required in Questioning Witness on Felony Conviction  29.72
      • 3.  Good Faith Also Required in Civil Cases  29.73
      • 4.  Burden of Proof on Admissibility of Felony Conviction  29.74
      • 5.  Federal Law  29.75
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Evidence of Pardon Offered to Preclude Use of Felony Conviction to Impeach  29.76
  • IX.  PRIOR INCONSISTENT AND PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS TO ATTACK OR SUPPORT CREDIBILITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Prior Inconsistent Statements  29.77
      • 2.  Rule: Prior Consistent Statements  29.78
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Prior Inconsistent Statements  29.79
      • 2.  Admissibility of Criminal Defendant’s Statement Obtained in Violation of Miranda  29.80
      • 3.  Using Illegally Seized Evidence to Impeach  29.81
      • 4.  Limitations on Evidence of Prior Consistent Statement to Support Credibility of Witness  29.82
      • 5.  Federal Law  29.83
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Prior Inconsistent Statement Contains Opinion That Declarant Not Qualified to Give  29.84
      • 2.  Prior Consistent Statement Made Before Prior Inconsistent Statement  29.85
  • X.  LIMITATIONS ON ATTACKING GOOD CHARACTER WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY
    • A.  Rule: Limitations on Attacking Good Character Witness’s Credibility  29.86
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Character Witness’s Credibility Subject to Attack or Support  29.87
      • 2.  Cross-Examination of Character Witness  29.88
      • 3.  Procedure for Determining Cross-Examiner’s Good Faith  29.89
      • 4.  Federal Law  29.90
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Cross-Examining Good Character Witness About Other Misconduct  29.90A
  • XI.  FACTORS SUPPORTING WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY; LIMITATIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Positive Credibility Evidence Is Admissible in Civil Cases  29.91
      • 2.  Rule: When Positive Evidence of Honesty Is Admissible in Civil Cases  29.92
      • 3.  Rule: Evidence Admissible to Support Credibility in Civil Cases  29.93
      • 4.  Rule: Specific Instances of Good Conduct Inadmissible to Support Credibility in Civil Cases  29.94
      • 5.  Rule: Character Evidence in Criminal Cases  29.95
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Limitations on Character Trait Evidence in Civil Cases  29.96
      • 2.  Limitations on Evidence to Support Witness’s Credibility  29.97
      • 3.  Admissibility of Evidence of Conduct to Establish Witness’s Character Trait in Criminal Cases  29.98
      • 4.  Relevancy of Character Traits Other Than Honesty or Truthfulness in Criminal Cases  29.99
      • 5.  Federal Law  29.100
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: When Impeaching Party Itself Elicits Explanation for Witness’s Purported Bias Against the Impeaching Party  29.100A
  • XII.  LIMITATIONS ON EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT TO ATTACK CREDIBILITY OF VICTIM-WITNESS IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL CASES
    • A.  Rule: Evidence of Victim’s Sexual Conduct in Certain Criminal Cases  29.101
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Restrictions on Admitting Sexual Conduct Evidence in Specified Criminal Cases  29.102
      • 2.  Establishing That Victim-Witness’s Sexual Conduct Is Relevant to Attack Credibility  29.103
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Defendant Seeks to Impeach Rape Victim by Showing That She Had Sexual Relations With Others  29.104
  • XIII.  LIMITATIONS ON EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT TO ATTACK PLAINTIFF-WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY IN SEXUAL ASSAULT, BATTERY, OR HARASSMENT IN CIVIL CASES
    • A.  Rule: Limitations on Evidence of Sexual Conduct in Civil Cases  29.105
    • B.  Judicial Comment  29.106
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Court’s Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence of Victim’s Sexual Conduct in Civil Cases  29.106A
  • XIV.  PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SEXUAL CONDUCT OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIM IN CERTAIN CASES
    • A.  Rules  29.107
    • B.  Illustration of Rules: Causal Nexus Between Victim’s Status as Human Trafficking Victim and Particular Commercial Sex Act at Issue  29.108

30

Opinion Testimony From Expert and Lay Witnesses

Christopher R. Aitken

Wylie A. Aitken

  • I.  OPINION TESTIMONY BY LAY OR NONEXPERT WITNESS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Lay Opinions  30.1
      • 2.  Rule: Exceptions That Expand Scope of Lay Opinions  30.2
      • 3.  Rule: Lay Opinions on Sanity  30.3
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Lay Witness’s Opinion Must Be Based on Witness’s Own Observation of Facts  30.4
      • 2.  Need for Testimony to Be in Form of Opinion  30.5
      • 3.  Some Typical Matters Held to Be Proper Subjects of Lay Witness Opinion Testimony  30.6
      • 4.  Owner’s Opinion of Value of Property and Person’s Opinion of Value of Own Services  30.7
      • 5.  Opinion on Value of Real Property by Owner or Owner’s Spouse  30.8
      • 6.  Opinion on Value of Real Property by Nonexpert Administrator of Decedent’s Estate  30.9
      • 7.  Lay Witness Opinion Testimony on Sanity  30.10
      • 8.  Trial Judge Has Wide Discretion  30.11
      • 9.  Federal Law  30.12
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Lay Opinion on Whether Nature of Potential Danger Was Obvious  30.13
      • 2.  Lay Witness Can Adequately Describe Observations  30.14
      • 3.  Lay Opinion Concerning Value of Real Property  30.15
  • II.  QUALIFICATION TO TESTIFY AS EXPERT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Qualification for Expert Witnesses  30.16
      • 2.  Rule: Expert May Testify on Own Qualifications  30.17
      • 3.  Rule: Objection Required to Challenge Expert’s Qualifications  30.18
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Voir Dire of Expert; Trial Judge Determines Whether Witness Qualifies as Expert  30.19
      • 2.  Qualifying as Expert Witness Even Though Not Otherwise Recognized as Expert  30.20
      • 3.  Factors of Experience, Training, or Education to Qualify Person as Expert  30.21
      • 4.  Expertise Must Relate to Particular Subject About Which Witness Will Express Opinion  30.22
      • 5.  Personal Experience Not Necessary to Qualify Expert on Particular Subject  30.23
      • 6.  Witness’s Qualification as Expert Is Reversible Only for Abuse of Discretion  30.24
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Mechanical Engineer Held Not Qualified to Give Expert Opinion on Appropriate Home Construction Design  30.25
  • III.  PROPER SUBJECT MATTER OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
    • A.  Rule: Proper Subject of Expert Opinion Testimony  30.26
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Expert Opinion Must Be on Subject Beyond Common Experience and Must Assist the Trier of Fact  30.27
      • 2.  Examples of When Expert Testimony Required  30.28
      • 3.  Expert Opinion on Effect of Human Trafficking  30.28A
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Expert Opinion on Child Molestation  30.29
      • 2.  Expert Witness Allowed to Testify About Lack of “Sexual Deviance”  30.30
      • 3.  Expert’s Testimony on “Indicators” of Motive for Retaliatory Termination Improperly Invaded Jury’s Role  30.31
      • 4.  Expert Opinion Regarding Meaning of Crime Charged  30.32
      • 5.  Attorney Testimony on What Constituted Bad Faith Conduct by Insurance Company  30.33
      • 6.  Expert Opinion on Intimate Partner Battering Admissible to Help Jury Evaluate Victim-Witness’s Credibility  30.34
      • 7.  Expert Testimony Required to Show Deviation From Standard of Care  30.35
      • 8.  Expert Testimony on Effects of Chronic Homelessness Relevant in Murder Trial  30.35A
  • IV.  PROPER BASES FOR EXPERT’S OPINION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Proper Bases for Expert’s Opinion  30.36
      • 2.  Rule: Improper Bases for Expert’s Opinion  30.37
      • 3.  Rule: Expert May Be Required to Be Cross-Examined on Basis for Opinion Before Giving Opinion  30.38
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Sources of Information on Which Expert’s Opinion May Be Based  30.39
      • 2.  Matter Relied on Must Be of Type on Which Expert May Reasonably Rely, Even if Otherwise Inadmissible  30.40
      • 3.  Expert Opinion May Not Be Based on Matter Made Improper by Constitutional, Statutory, or Case-Developed Law  30.41
      • 4.  Conjectural and Speculative Matters Improper to Support Expert’s Opinion  30.42
      • 5.  Expert Testimony, Unlike Scientific Evidence, Is Generally Not Subject to Kelly Test  30.43
      • 6.  Hearsay Material Proper to Support Expert’s Opinion Under Some Circumstances  30.44
      • 7.  Expert Testimony on Culture and Habits of Gangs  30.45
      • 8.  Expert Testimony That Defendant Fits Criminal Profile  30.46
      • 9.  Reliance on Opinion of Nontestifying Expert  30.47
      • 10.  Hypothetical Questions  30.48
      • 11.  Standard for Ruling on Whether Matter Relied on Is Proper to Support Opinion  30.49
      • 12.  Federal Law  30.50
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Expert’s Reliance on Photographs  30.51
      • 2.  Expert Opinion That Crime Was Gang-Related  30.52
      • 3.  Expert Opinion on “Confusional Arousal Syndrome”  30.53
      • 4.  Expert Opinion on Psychological Characteristics  30.54
      • 5.  Expert Opinion Based on Statements Made Under Hypnosis  30.55
      • 6.  Expert Opinion on Value of Easement  30.56
      • 7.  Expert’s Opinion Testimony in Form of Hypothetical Question  30.57
      • 8.  Rape Trauma Syndrome Is Improper Matter for Expert’s Opinion That Individual Has Been Raped  30.58
  • V.  CALLING PERSON ON WHOSE OPINION EXPERT WITNESS’S OPINION IS BASED
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Calling Person on Whose Statement Expert’s Opinion Is Based  30.59
      • 2.  Rule: Exceptions to Calling Witness on Whose Statement Opinion Is Based  30.60
      • 3.  Rule: Opinion on Which Expert’s Opinion Is Based Must Provide Proper Support  30.61
    • B.  Judicial Comment  30.62
  • VI.  EXPERT’S OPINION ON ULTIMATE ISSUE; QUESTION OF LAW
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Expert Opinion May Embrace Ultimate Issue  30.63
      • 2.  Rule: Expert Testimony on Issue of Law Is Not Admissible  30.64
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Expert Witness’s Opinion Not Objectionable on Basis That It Embraces Ultimate Issue  30.65
      • 2.  Expert May Not Give Opinion on Question of Law  30.66
      • 3.  Expert Opinion May Not Invade Jury’s Province to Decide Case  30.67
      • 4.  Expert Testimony on Defendant’s Mental State in Guilt Phase of Criminal Actions  30.68
      • 5.  Federal Law  30.69
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Expert Opinion Concerning Ultimate Issue  30.70
      • 2.  Expert Opinion That Drugs Were Possessed for Purpose of Illegal Sales  30.71
  • VII.  SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Cross-Examination of Experts More Expansive Than of Nonexperts  30.72
      • 2.  Rule: When Expert May Be Cross-Examined on Publications  30.73
      • 3.  Rule: Cross-Examination of Expert on Compensation  30.74
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Extensive Scope of Cross-Examination of Expert Witness  30.75
      • 2.  Publications on Which Expert Witness May Be Cross-Examined  30.76
      • 3.  Federal Law  30.77
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Cross-Examination Regarding Compensation Paid to Expert by Court  30.78
  • VIII.  COURT-APPOINTED EXPERTS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Court May Appoint Expert  30.79
      • 2.  Rule: When County Pays Compensation for Court-Appointed Medical Experts in Civil Actions  30.80
      • 3.  Rule: When Parties Pay Compensation in Civil Actions  30.81
      • 4.  Rule: Who May Call Court-Appointed Expert  30.82
      • 5.  Rule: Objections to Court-Appointed Expert  30.83
      • 6.  Rule: Calling Additional Experts  30.84
      • 7.  Rule: Jury May Be Told Expert Was Appointed by Court  30.85
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Court Has Discretion to Appoint Experts in Any Type of Action  30.86
      • 2.  Calling and Examining Court-Appointed Expert  30.87
      • 3.  Advising Jury of Appointment of Expert Witness by Court  30.88
      • 4.  Court-Appointment of Experts No Bar to Parties Producing Own Experts  30.89
      • 5.  Federal Law  30.90
  • IX.  WHAT LAY AND EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION MAY INCLUDE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Testimony on Basis and Reasons for Opinion  30.91
      • 2.  Rule: Witness May Be Required to Be Questioned First on Matter on Which Opinion Based  30.92
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  On Direct Examination, Lay or Expert Witness Permitted to State Reasons for Opinion  30.93
      • 2.  Excluding Hearsay Under Evid C §352  30.94
      • 3.  Trial Judge Has Discretion to Require Witness to State Matter on Which Opinion Is Based Before Rendering Opinion  30.95
      • 4.  Federal Law  30.96
  • X.  LAY OR EXPERT OPINION BASED ON BOTH PROPER AND IMPROPER MATTER
    • A.  Rule: When Opinion May Be Stricken or Excluded  30.97
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Opinion Based on Improper Matter  30.98

31

Authentication and Proof of Writings

  • I.  MEANING OF “WRITING” AND NEED FOR AUTHENTICATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Writing”  31.1
      • 2.  Rule: “Writing” Includes Graffiti  31.2
      • 3.  Rule: Definition of “Original”  31.3
      • 4.  Rule: Writing Must Be Authenticated  31.4
      • 5.  Rule: How to Authenticate Writing  31.5
      • 6.  Rule: Authentication Does Not Establish Writing’s “Authenticity”  31.6
      • 7.  Rule: Copy Is Presumptively Admissible  31.7
      • 8.  Rule: Alterations on Writing Must Be Explained  31.8
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Meaning of and Need for Authentication of Writing  31.9
      • 2.  Degree of Proof Required for Evidence of Authentication of Writing  31.10
      • 3.  Authentication of Writing by Presumptions, Stipulations, and Admissions  31.11
      • 4.  Federal Law  31.12
  • II.  METHODS OF AUTHENTICATING WRITING OTHER THAN BY USE OF PRESUMPTION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Person Who Saw Writing Executed May Authenticate It  31.13
      • 2.  Rule: Authentication by Party Against Whom Writing Offered  31.14
      • 3.  Rule: Authentication of Response  31.15
      • 4.  Rule: Authentication by Writing’s Contents  31.16
      • 5.  Rule: Authentication of Handwriting by Person Familiar With Maker’s Handwriting  31.17
      • 6.  Rule: Expert Testimony on Genuineness of Writing  31.18
      • 7.  Rule: Handwriting Comparison by Trier of Fact  31.19
      • 8.  Rule: 30-Year-Old Writing Acted on as Genuine  31.20
      • 9.  Rule: Subscribing Witnesses  31.21
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Various Authentication Methods in Evid C §§1411–1421 Are Not Exclusive  31.22
      • 2.  Authentication of Writing to Which There Is Subscribing Witness  31.23
      • 3.  Federal Law  31.24
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Authentication of Writing Based on Public Employee’s Signature  31.25
      • 2.  Comparison by Trier of Fact of Questioned Handwriting With Genuine Exemplar
        • a.  Typewritten Letter Having Defendant’s Signature  31.26
        • b.  Signature on Insurance Policy Claim Form  31.27
      • 3.  Authentication of Unsigned Copy of Trust Document by Testimony That Witnesses Saw Signed Trust Document, But Did Not See Signing  31.28
  • III.  AUTHENTICATION OF RECORDINGS, MOTION PICTURES, PHOTOGRAPHS, MAPS, AND DIAGRAMS
    • A.  Rule: Authentication of Recordings, Motion Pictures, Photographs, Maps, and Diagrams  31.29
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence Code Definition of “Writing” and Related Authentication Issues  31.30
      • 2.  Maker of Audio Recording, or Photographer Who Takes Picture, Not Required to Be Authenticating Witness  31.31
      • 3.  Trial Judge Should First Listen to Audio Recording and See Video Recording Out of Jury’s Presence  31.32
  • IV.  AUTHENTICATION OF ACKNOWLEDGED WRITING, OTHER THAN WILL, OR OF OFFICIAL WRITING, BY PRESUMPTIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Certification of Acknowledgment and Proof  31.33
      • 2.  Rule: Signature  31.34
      • 3.  Rule: Seal  31.35
      • 4.  Rule: Presumptions Concerning Signatures and Seals  31.36
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Use of Presumptions to Authenticate Acknowledged and Official Writings  31.37
      • 2.  Foreign Official Signatures and Seals  31.38
      • 3.  Federal Law  31.39

32

Proving Contents of Writings and the Secondary Evidence Rule

  • I.  PROVING THE CONTENTS OF A WRITING—IN GENERAL
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Proof of Content by Original of Writing  32.1
      • 2.  Rule: Proof of Content by Secondary Evidence  32.2
      • 3.  Rule: Generally, Oral Testimony May Not Be Used to Prove Content of Writing  32.3
      • 4.  Rule: Definition of “Writing”  32.4
      • 5.  Rule: Definition of “Original”  32.5
      • 6.  Rule: Evidence Not Barred When Writing Not Offered to Prove Content  32.6
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  “Best Evidence Rule” Repealed and Replaced by Secondary Evidence Rule  32.7
      • 2.  Secondary Evidence Rule Applies Only to Proof of Content of Writing  32.8
      • 3.  “Original Writing” Includes Duplicate Intended to Be Used as Original  32.9
      • 4.  Objects Such as Recordings and Photographs  32.10
      • 5.  Inscribed Chattels as Writings  32.11
      • 6.  Federal Law  32.12
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Testimony About Value of Decedent’s Estate Not Proof of Content of Writing  32.13
      • 2.  Credit Card Is “Writing” Whose Contents Could Be Proved by Secondary Evidence  32.14
      • 3.  Unsigned Copy of Trust Document Admissible  32.15
  • II.  ADMISSIBILITY OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Secondary Evidence Is Inadmissible to Prove Content of Writing  32.16
      • 2.  Rule: Admissibility of Oral Testimony as Secondary Evidence  32.17
      • 3.  Rule: Authentication Requirement Not Excused  32.18
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Purpose of Secondary Evidence Rule  32.19
      • 2.  Other Exclusionary Rules of Evidence Apply  32.20
      • 3.  Proving Content of Documents Destroyed in Disaster  32.21
      • 4.  Federal Law  32.22
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  No Requirement That Secondary Evidence Reproduce Lost Document Verbatim  32.23
      • 2.  Copy of Original Letter Written by Defendant; Authentication  32.24
      • 3.  When Evidence of Content of Destroyed Original “Deemed Original”  32.25
      • 4.  Secondary Evidence Admissible Only if It Complies With Other Rules of Evidence  32.26
  • III.  ADMISSIBILITY OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: General Rule  32.27
      • 2.  Rule: Exceptions to General Rule  32.28
      • 3.  Rule: Request to Exclude Secondary Evidence Must Be Made Outside Jury’s Presence  32.29
      • 4.  Rule: Proving Content of Writing at Preliminary Hearing  32.30
      • 5.  Rule: Admissibility of Certified Photographic or Digital Record  32.31
      • 6.  Rule: Definition of “Duplicate Copy”  32.32
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Application of Secondary Evidence Rule in Criminal Proceedings  32.33
  • IV.  ADMISSIBILITY OF ORAL TESTIMONY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Oral Testimony Not Admissible Unless Otherwise Provided by Statute  32.34
      • 2.  Rule: Oral Testimony Admissible When Proponent Lacks Possession and Control of Copy and Original Is Lost or Destroyed Without Fraudulent Intent  32.35
      • 3.  Rule: Oral Testimony Admissible When Proponent Lacks Possession and Control of Copy and Writing or Copy Not Obtainable or Writing Has Minor Relevance and Production Is Inexpedient  32.36
      • 4.  Rule: Oral Testimony Admissible When Writing Voluminous and Evidence Sought Is General in Nature  32.37
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Copy of Writing Favored Over Oral Testimony Unless Exceptions Apply  32.38
      • 2.  Federal Law on Oral Testimony  32.39
      • 3.  Judge’s Discretion on What Constitutes Numerous Accounts or Other Writings  32.40
      • 4.  Federal Law on Voluminous Writings  32.41
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Personal Knowledge of Original Required Before Introducing Testimony on Contents of Unavailable Writing  32.42
      • 2.  Written Summary of Lessor’s Costs  32.43
  • V.  PRINTED REPRESENTATIONS OF COMPUTER INFORMATION AND PROGRAMS, AND VIDEO AND DIGITAL IMAGES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Computer Printout Is Presumed to Be Accurate Representation of Information or Program It Allegedly Represents  32.44
      • 2.  Rule: Printed Video or Digital Images Are Presumed to Be Accurate Representation  32.45
      • 3.  Rule: Presumption of Accuracy of Printed Video or Digital Images Affects Burden of Proof  32.46
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Secondary Evidence Rule Does Not Apply to Video or Digital Images  32.47
  • VI.  COPIES OF WRITINGS IN OFFICIAL CUSTODY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Presumptions About Copy of Original in Custody of Public Entity  32.48
      • 2.  Rule: Presumption When Writing Is Official Record of Recorded Writing  32.49
      • 3.  Rule: When Presumptions Do Not Apply to Copy of Original Official Writing  32.50
      • 4.  Rule: When Presumptions Do Not Apply to Official Record of Recorded Writing  32.51
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Presumptions to Prove Authenticity of Original Writing and Copy  32.52
      • 2.  Certification or Attestation of Authenticity of Writing Creates Exception to Hearsay Rule  32.53
      • 3.  Copy of Original Official Record or Original Recorded Writing  32.54
      • 4.  Federal Law  32.55

33

Admissibility of Electronic Evidence

Barbara A. Caulfield

John W. Downing

Peter E. Root

  • I.  DEFINITIONAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of Electronic Evidence  33.1
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Writing” Includes Electronically Stored Information (ESI)  33.2
      • 3.  Rule: Definition of “Original”  33.3
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Importance of Electronic Discovery Legislation  33.4
      • 2.  Case Law Confirms Broad Definition of “Writing” to Include ESI  33.5
  • II.  GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AUTHENTICATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Need for and Definition of “Authentication”  33.6
      • 2.  Rule: Evidence Not Excludable Merely Because in Electronic Form  33.7
      • 3.  Rule: Burden of Authenticating Evidence  33.8
      • 4.  Rule: Authenticity Is Determined Twice  33.9
      • 5.  Rule: Proponent Can Authenticate Electronic Evidence Using Both Direct and Circumstantial Evidence  33.10
      • 6.  Rule: Presumption of Evidence for Computer Printouts  33.11
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Authentication Challenges for Electronic Evidence Generally Same as for Writing  33.12
      • 2.  Connecting Computer Records to User  33.13
      • 3.  Authenticating Computer Hardware and Software  33.14
      • 4.  Federal Court and Vee Vinhnee Foundational Test for Computer Record Authentication  33.15
      • 5.  Avoiding Authentication Issues  33.16
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Traditional, Less Strict Requirement for Authenticating Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
        • a.  Printout of DMV Records  33.17
        • b.  Internet Chat Room Printouts  33.17A
        • c.  Cell Phone Photographs  33.17B
      • 2.  Strict Requirement for Authenticating Electronically Stored Information (ESI)  33.18
  • III.  METHODS OF AUTHENTICATING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Witness Authentication  33.19
      • 2.  Rule: Admissions  33.20
      • 3.  Rule: “Reply” Authentication  33.21
      • 4.  Rule: Self-Authentication by Distinctive Characteristics  33.22
      • 5.  Rule: Expert Comparison With “Genuine”  33.23
      • 6.  Rule: Comparison Through Ancient Documents  33.24
      • 7.  Rule: Treatment as Business Records  33.25
      • 8.  Rule: Treatment as Official Record  33.26
      • 9.  Rule: Circumstantial “Catchall”  33.27
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Authenticating E-mail  33.28
      • 2.  Authenticating Internet Website Postings or Webpage Printouts  33.29
      • 3.  Authenticating Text, Instant, and Chat Room Messages  33.30
      • 4.  Authenticating Demonstrative Evidence (Computer Animations, Digital Photographs, and Computer Simulations)  33.31
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Circumstantial Evidence Authenticating E-mail
        • a.  Employee’s E-mail Sufficiently Authenticated by Multiple Factors  33.32
        • b.  Sufficient Evidence of Genuineness Based on Witnesses’ Personal Knowledge  33.33
      • 2.  Instant Message Authentication of User Name  33.34
      • 3.  Authentication of Website List  33.35
      • 4.  Authenticity of Tape Recording Transcript  33.35A
  • IV.  ELECTRONIC HEARSAY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of Hearsay  33.36
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of Statement  33.37
      • 3.  Rule: Definition of Person  33.38
      • 4.  Rule: Operative Fact Doctrine  33.39
      • 5.  Rule: Printout of Computer’s Internal Operations Is Nonhearsay by Definition  33.40
      • 6.  Rule: Party Admissions  33.41
      • 7.  Rule: Business Records  33.42
      • 8.  Rule: Official Record Made by Public Employee  33.43
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Electronic Evidence and Operable Fact Doctrine  33.44
      • 2.  Distinction Between Internal Computer Activity and Computer Records Generated From Hearsay Evidence  33.45
      • 3.  Authentication of Business Records  33.46
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Digital Tack Automatically Placed on Satellite Image Is Not Hearsay  33.46A
      • 2.  “Header” Information With Photographic Image Is Not Hearsay  33.46B
      • 3.  Automated Traffic Enforcement System (“Red Light Camera”) Evidence Is Not Hearsay  33.46C
  • V.  APPLICATION OF SECONDARY EVIDENCE RULE TO ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Original”  33.47
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Duplicate”  33.48
      • 3.  Rule: Secondary Evidence Rule  33.49
      • 4.  Rule: Computer-Generated Records Are “Originals”  33.50
      • 5.  Rule: Business/Official Records Are Admissible Under Certain Circumstances  33.51
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Creation of Secondary Evidence Rule  33.52
      • 2.  Computer Printouts That Capture Computer Data Qualify as Original Writings  33.53
      • 3.  Computer Business/Public Records Admissible if Unalterable  33.54
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Sent or Received E-mail Message  33.54A
      • 2.  Business Records Archived on CD-ROM  33.54B
  • VI.  DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Demonstrative Evidence  33.55
      • 2.  Rule: Photographs, Motion Pictures, and Video Recordings  33.56
      • 3.  Rule: Computer Models or Animations  33.57
      • 4.  Rule: New Scientific Method of Proof  33.58
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Demonstrative Evidence Used as Illustrative Versus Experimental (Kelly Analysis)  33.59
      • 2.  Computer Animations Do Not Require Kelly Foundation  33.60
      • 3.  Computer Software Programs Used to Cross-Reference Data Require Kelly Scrutiny  33.61
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Computer Animation  33.62
      • 2.  Authenticity of Computer-Generated Photographs  33.63

34

Parol Evidence Rule

  • I.  ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT TERMS OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence Is Inadmissible to Contradict “Final” Written Instrument  34.1
      • 2.  Rule: Exceptions  34.2
      • 3.  Rule: When Terms in Written Instrument May Be Explained or Supplemented by Consistent Additional Terms  34.3
      • 4.  Rule: Court’s Duties  34.4
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Parol Evidence Rule Is More Rule of Substantive Law Than Rule of Evidence  34.5
      • 2.  Parol Evidence Rule Applies Only to Integrated, Finalized, Written Instrument  34.6
      • 3.  Parol Evidence Rule Limited to Contractual-Type Documents  34.7
      • 4.  Partial Integration Distinguished From Complete Integration  34.8
      • 5.  Procedure for Ruling on Parties’ Intent for Integration to Be Partial or Complete  34.9
      • 6.  Difficulty in Determining Parties’ Intent; Tests Under Restatement of Contracts and Uniform Commercial Code  34.10
  • II.  ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO INTERPRET WRITTEN INSTRUMENT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence Admissible When Wording Susceptible of Proponent’s Interpretation  34.11
      • 2.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence Admissible to Interpret and Explain  34.12
      • 3.  Rule: When Extrinsic Evidence Admissible to Prove Additional Terms of Written Agreement  34.13
      • 4.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence Inadmissible if It Gives Writing Meaning of Which It Is Not Reasonably Susceptible  34.14
      • 5.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence Inadmissible if No Tendency to Prove Contended Meaning  34.15
      • 6.  Rule: Court’s Duties  34.16
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  When Extrinsic Evidence Is Admissible to Explain Meaning of Written Instrument  34.17
      • 2.  Written Instrument Unambiguous on Its Face Does Not Bar Extrinsic Evidence to Establish Different Meaning  34.18
      • 3.  Extrinsic Evidence Must Have Tendency in Reason to Prove Meaning That Party-Proponent Seeks to Establish  34.19
      • 4.  Standard of Review on Appeal  34.20
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Oral Agreement Consistent With Partially Integrated Written Contract  34.20A
      • 2.  Oral Agreement May Not Contradict Integrated Written Agreement  34.20B
      • 3.  Extrinsic Evidence to Interpret Written Contract Must Be Relevant to Prove Meaning to Which Contract Is Susceptible  34.20C
  • III.  PROCEDURE FOR RULING ON PAROL-EVIDENCE-RULE OBJECTION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Objection That Extrinsic Evidence Is Offered to Establish Prior or Contemporaneous Agreement in Nonjury Trial  34.21
      • 2.  Rule: Objection That Extrinsic Evidence Is Offered to Establish Prior or Contemporaneous Agreement in Jury Trial  34.22
      • 3.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence Offered to Establish Particular Meaning and Objection Made in Nonjury Trial  34.23
      • 4.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence Offered to Establish Particular Meaning and Objection Made in Jury Trial  34.24
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Procedure for Determining Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence to Establish Prior or Contemporaneous Agreement to Alter Written Instrument; Difference Between Jury and Nonjury Trial  34.25
      • 2.  Procedures Concerning Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence to Alter Written Instrument in Jury Trial  34.26
      • 3.  Procedure for Determining Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence to Establish Meaning of Written Instrument; Difference Between Jury and Nonjury Trial  34.27
  • IV.  ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT WRITTEN INSTRUMENT IS INVALID OR UNENFORCEABLE
    • A.  Rule: Proof That Written Instrument Is Invalid or Otherwise Unenforceable  34.28
    • B.  Judicial Comment  34.29
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Parol Evidence Rule Does Not Bar Oral Evidence of Misrepresentation of Fact  34.29A
  • V.  ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Subsequent Modification  34.30
      • 2.  Rule: Limitations on Subsequent Agreements  34.31
    • B.  Judicial Comment  34.32
  • VI.  ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT DEED, ABSOLUTE IN FORM, WAS INTENDED TO TRANSFER SECURITY INTEREST ONLY
    • A.  Rule: Intention of Deed  34.33
    • B.  Judicial Comment  34.34
  • VII.  ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT PARTY TO WRITTEN CONTRACT ACTED AS AGENT FOR PRINCIPAL
    • A.  Rule: Evidence That Party to Written Contract Acted as Agent for Principal  34.35
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Extrinsic Evidence to Establish Liability or Rights of Known or Unknown Principal on Written Contract  34.36
  • VIII.  ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT WRITTEN AGREEMENT OFFERED IN ACTION BETWEEN PARTY TO AGREEMENT AND STRANGER
    • A.  Rule: Extrinsic Evidence to Contradict Written Agreement Between Party to Agreement and Stranger  34.37
    • B.  Judicial Comment  34.38

35

Evidence of Character, Habit, and Custom

Hon. Brenda F. Harbin-Forte

Hon. Martin J. Jenkins

  • I.  RULES OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE: DEFINITION, TYPES OF EVIDENCE, PURPOSES, AND RESTRICTIONS
    • A.  Rule: Definition of “Character Evidence”  35.1
    • B.  Rule: How Character Trait May Be Established  35.2
    • C.  Rule: Purposes for Which Character Trait Is Relevant  35.3
    • D.  Rule: Restrictions on Use of Character Evidence  35.4
  • II.  CHARACTER EVIDENCE TO PROVE PERSON’S CHARACTER TRAIT AS ULTIMATE FACT IN DISPUTE
    • A.  Rule: Character Evidence to Prove Person’s Character When It Is Essential Element of Cause of Action, Claim, or Defense  35.5
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Federal Law  35.6
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Evidence of Company Official’s Sexual Misconduct With Female Employees Other Than Plaintiff  35.7
  • III.  CHARACTER EVIDENCE TO PROVE CONDUCT IN CIVIL CASE
    • A.  Rule: Character Evidence Usually Inadmissible in Civil Actions to Prove Conduct  35.8
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Character Evidence to Prove Conduct Usually Inadmissible in Civil Cases  35.9
      • 2.  Federal Law  35.10
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Reputation and Personal Opinion Evidence to Prove Conduct in Civil Assault and Battery Case  35.11
  • IV.  CRIMINAL DEFENDANT’S CHARACTER TRAIT TO PROVE CONDUCT IN CRIMINAL CASE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Defense May Introduce Evidence of Defendant’s Character  35.12
      • 2.  Rule: When Prosecution May Rebut Defense Character Evidence  35.13
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Criminal Defendant May Introduce Opinion and Reputation Evidence to Prove Conduct in Conformity With Trait Tending to Prove Innocence  35.14
      • 2.  Prosecution May Introduce Character Evidence to Rebut Character Evidence First Introduced by Defendant  35.15
      • 3.  Federal Law  35.16
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Personal Opinion and Reputation Evidence of Nonaggressiveness Offered by Defendant to Prove Self-Defense  35.17
  • V.  UNCHARGED ACT TO PROVE FACTS OTHER THAN PROPENSITY TO COMMIT CHARGED ACTS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Evidence of Other Offenses Ordinarily Inadmissible to Prove Propensity  35.18
      • 2.  Rule: Evidence of Other Offenses Admissible if Relevant to Disputed Fact  35.19
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Terminology  35.20
      • 2.  Rationale for Exclusion of Propensity Evidence  35.21
      • 3.  Steps for Determining Whether to Admit Uncharged Acts  35.22
        • a.  Uncharged Acts Must Be Relevant to Disputed Fact Other Than Propensity  35.23
        • b.  Uncharged Acts Must Be Similar to Charged Act
          • (1)  Intent  35.24
          • (2)  Common Design or Plan  35.25
          • (3)  Identity  35.26
          • (4)  Other Disputed Facts  35.27
        • c.  Evidence Code §352 Balancing Required  35.28
      • 4.  Acquittal of Other Charged Offense No Barrier to Relevancy and Admissibility  35.29
      • 5.  Uncharged Acts May Have Occurred Before or After Act Charged in Pending Case  35.30
      • 6.  Admissibility of Uncharged Offense as Part of Prosecution’s or Plaintiff’s Case-in-Chief  35.31
      • 7.  Misconduct Evidence to Prove Special Circumstance in Death Penalty Case  35.32
      • 8.  Proof That Defendant Committed Uncharged Offense; Corpus Delicti Rule  35.33
      • 9.  Alternative Reasons for Admissibility  35.34
      • 10.  Proper Objection  35.35
      • 11.  Instructions  35.36
      • 12.  Federal Law  35.37
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Marital Discord and Prior Assaults in Homicide Case to Prove Intent, Motive, and Identity  35.38
      • 2.  Evidence of Later Rape and Robbery in Case Charging Rape, Robbery, and Burglary to Prove Intent or Common Plan  35.39
      • 3.  Evidence of Other Robbery-Murders in Case Charging Robbery-Murder to Prove Identity  35.39A
      • 4.  Pornographic Magazines and Photos in Homicide Case to Prove Intent  35.39B
      • 5.  Facts to Support Defendant’s Having Battering Parent Syndrome  35.40
      • 6.  Specific Instances of Person’s Acts as Character Evidence to Prove Conduct in Civil Case  35.40A
      • 7.  Prior DUI in Vehicular Homicide Case to Prove Knowledge Element of Implied Malice  35.40B
      • 8.  Fingerprint Evidence From One Charged Burglary Admitted Concerning Identity in Different Pending Burglary Case  35.40C
  • VI.  VICTIM’S CHARACTER TRAIT TO PROVE VICTIM’S CONDUCT IN CRIMINAL CASE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Victim’s Character Trait Admissible to Prove Victim’s Conduct in Criminal Case  35.41
      • 2.  Victim’s Sexual Character Traits Inadmissible in Certain Sex Cases to Prove Victim’s Consent  35.42
      • 3.  Rule: Manner in Which Victim Was Dressed  35.43
      • 4.  Rule: Victim’s Character Traits May Be Admissible to Attack Credibility  35.44
      • 5.  Rule: Defendant’s Character for Violence in Criminal Case May Be Admissible if Such Evidence Admitted Concerning Victim  35.45
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Criminal Defendant May Introduce Character Evidence of Victim to Prove Victim’s Conduct at Time of Crime  35.46
      • 2.  Prosecution May Introduce Character Evidence of Victim Only to Rebut Similar Defense Evidence  35.47
      • 3.  In Specified Sex Cases, Defense May Not Offer Evidence of Victim’s Sexual Conduct to Prove Consent  35.48
      • 4.  Federal Law  35.49
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Defense Rebuttal Evidence to Rape Victim’s Testimony  35.49A
  • VII.  EVIDENCE OF COMMISSION OF SEXUAL OFFENSE IN CRIMINAL ACTION FOR SEXUAL VIOLENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Evidence of Uncharged Sexual Offenses Admissible if Prejudice Does Not Outweigh Probative Value  35.50
      • 2.  Rule: Prosecution Must Disclose Intention to Offer Evidence of Uncharged Sexual Offenses in Advance of Trial  35.51
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Court Must Engage in Weighing Process Under Evid C §352 Before Admitting Evidence Under Evid C §1108  35.52
      • 2.  Defendant Must Be Accused of Sexual Offense  35.53
      • 3.  Error to Exclude Evidence That Defendant Was Acquitted of Offense Admitted as Propensity Evidence  35.54
      • 4.  Federal Rule  35.55
  • VIII.  EVIDENCE OF PRIOR VIOLENCE OR ABUSE IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE OF ELDER OR DEPENDENT PERSON, OR CHILD ABUSE
    • A.  Rule: Evidence of Uncharged Domestic Violence, Abuse of Elder or Dependent Person, or Child Abuse Is Admissible if Prejudice Does Not Outweigh Probative Value  35.56
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Constitutionality of Evid C §1109  35.57
      • 2.  Propensity Inference and Other Charged Offenses  35.58
  • IX.  PLAINTIFF’S SEXUAL CONDUCT TO PROVE CONDUCT IN CIVIL CASE
    • A.  Rule: Evidence of Plaintiff’s Sexual Conduct Limited in Certain Civil Cases  35.59
    • B.  Judicial Comment  35.60
  • X.  EVIDENCE OF HABIT OR CUSTOM TO PROVE CONDUCT ON SPECIFIED OCCASION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Habit” and “Custom”  35.61
      • 2.  Rule: Habit or Custom to Prove Conduct  35.62
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Distinctions Between Habit, Custom, and Character Evidence  35.63
      • 2.  Admissibility of Habit, Custom, and Character Evidence to Prove Conduct in Civil Cases  35.64
      • 3.  Consistency Required for Behavior to Constitute Habit Rather Than Just Character Trait  35.65
      • 4.  Eyewitness Corroboration Not Required for Admissibility of Habit Evidence  35.66
      • 5.  Federal Law  35.67
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Habit Evidence Offered by Defendant in Criminal Case to Prove Conduct on Occasion in Question  35.68
      • 2.  Habit Evidence Offered by Plaintiff in Civil Case to Prove Defendant’s Conduct on Occasion in Question  35.69
      • 3.  Habit Evidence in Criminal Case to Prove Car Door Locked  35.70

36

Other Items of Evidence Affected or Excluded by Extrinsic Policies

  • I.  EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH OR SUPPORT JURY’S VERDICT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Certain Evidence Admissible to Impeach Jury Verdict  36.1
      • 2.  Rule: Evidence of Mental Process or Effect Inadmissible to Impeach or Support Jury Verdict  36.2
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Only Evidence of Things Seen, Heard, or Otherwise Sensed Is Admissible to Impeach Verdict  36.3
      • 2.  Affidavits Are Proper Form of Evidence to Support Motion for New Trial  36.4
      • 3.  Court May Question Juror Concerning Misconduct Before Jury Renders Verdict  36.5
      • 4.  Evidence May Raise Presumption of Prejudice  36.6
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Evidence That Juror Disclosed Bias Is Admissible  36.6A
      • 2.  Evidence That Jury Wrote Its Own Instructions Is Subjective Reasoning Process and Therefore Inadmissible  36.6B
      • 3.  Presumption of Misconduct From Juror Reading Newspaper Account of Case  36.6C
  • II.  EVIDENCE OF SUBSEQUENT REPAIRS OR OTHER REMEDIAL CONDUCT
    • A.  Rule: Subsequent Repairs or Other Remedial Conduct  36.7
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures Excluded for Policy Reasons  36.8
      • 2.  Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures Admissible for Other Relevant Purposes  36.9
      • 3.  Federal Law  36.10
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Evidence of Remedial Action Taken by Nonparty Is Admissible  36.11
  • III.  EVIDENCE OF PARTY’S OFFER TO COMPROMISE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Evidence Concerning Settlement and Compromise to Prove Liability  36.12
      • 2.  Rule: Offer of Compromise in Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing  36.13
      • 3.  Rule: Evidence Concerning Satisfaction and Debts  36.14
      • 4.  Rule: Offer to Compromise to Prove Invalidity of Claim  36.15
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Exclusion of Evidence of Offer to Compromise Based on Policy to Further Settlement  36.16
      • 2.  Admission Made During Settlement Negotiation Inadmissible to Prove Liability  36.17
      • 3.  Federal Law  36.18
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Admission of Fault Made During Settlement Negotiations  36.18A
      • 2.  Offer of Settlement Admissible for Other Purpose  36.18B
  • IV.  EVIDENCE ARISING FROM MEDIATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Statements Made During Mediation Inadmissible  36.19
      • 2.  Rule: Documents Prepared for or During Mediation and Communications During Mediation Inadmissible  36.20
      • 3.  Rule: Parties May Consent to Disclosure of Mediation Statements, Documents, and Communications  36.21
      • 4.  Rule: Oral Agreement in Accordance With Evid C §1118  36.22
      • 5.  Rule: Admissibility of Written Settlement Agreement  36.23
      • 6.  Rule: Admissibility of Oral Settlement Agreement  36.24
      • 7.  Rule: Using Evidence in Mediation Does Not Make It Inadmissible  36.25
      • 8.  Rule: Mediator May Not File Report Without Consent of Parties  36.26
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Rules Encourage Mediation  36.27
      • 2.  Nonparties May Be Mediation Participants for Purpose of Consent Required for Release of Mediation Communications  36.28
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Absent Express Waiver of Confidentiality Rights, Communications Made During Mediation Are Not Subject to Discovery  36.28A
      • 2.  Communications During Company’s Internal Termination Review Hearing Are Not Confidential Because Proceeding Is Not Mediation  36.28B
  • V.  EVIDENCE THAT PARTY HAS LIABILITY INSURANCE
    • A.  Rule: Evidence of Liability Insurance Inadmissible  36.29
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence of Liability Insurance Irrelevant to Prove Negligence  36.30
      • 2.  Evidence of Party’s Liability Insurance Not Excluded if Integral Part of Other Admissible Evidence  36.31
      • 3.  Federal Law  36.32
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Evidence That Defendant Carried Insurance Relevant for Purpose Other Than Establishing Negligence  36.32A
  • VI.  ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN MEDICAL EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Records of Medical Committees Discoverable but Inadmissible  36.33
      • 2.  Rule: Records of Certain Review Committees Not Discoverable  36.34
      • 3.  Rule: No Evidence of Live Animal Experimentation in Certain Product Liability Cases  36.34A
    • B.  Judicial Comment  36.35
  • VII.  EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANT’S OFFER TO PLEAD GUILTY, WITHDRAWN PLEA OF GUILTY, OR ADMISSIONS MADE DURING PLEA-BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS
    • A.  Rule: Plea of Guilty, Offer to Plead Guilty, and Offer for Civil Compromise  36.36
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Plea Negotiation and Compromise Evidence Admissible Only for Impeachment  36.37
      • 2.  Federal Law  36.38
    • C.  Illustration of Rule: Statements of Defendant Made During Plea Negotiations Used to Impeach Defendant  36.38A
  • VIII.  COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE
    • A.  Rule: Collateral Source Rule  36.39
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Policy Supporting Rule  36.40
      • 2.  Criticism of Rule  36.41
      • 3.  Statutory Limitations on Application of Rule
        • a.  Action Against Public Entity  36.42
        • b.  Action Against Health Care Provider  36.43
      • 4.  Other Limitations on Application of Rule
        • a.  Malingering Claim  36.44
        • b.  FELA Action in State Court  36.45

37

Privileges: General Provisions

  • I.  WAIVER OF PRIVILEGES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Privilege Waived by Disclosure  37.1
      • 2.  Rule: Erroneous Compulsion of Disclosure Does Not Result in Waiver  37.2
      • 3.  Rule: Privileged Disclosure Does Not Result in Waiver  37.3
      • 4.  Rule: Disclosure in Furtherance of Consultation Does Not Result in Waiver  37.4
      • 5.  Rule: Waiver by Joint Holder Does Not Affect Other Holder’s Privilege  37.5
      • 6.  Rule: One Spouse’s Waiver Does Not Affect Other Spouse’s Privilege  37.6
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Distinction Between Holder of Privilege and Person With Right to Claim Privilege  37.7
      • 2.  Privilege Holder’s Disclosure and Consent to Disclosure by Another  37.8
      • 3.  Privileged Disclosure Does Not Result in Waiver  37.9
      • 4.  Necessary Disclosure to Third Person Does Not Result in Waiver  37.10
      • 5.  Waiver by Joint Holders of Privilege  37.11
      • 6.  Waiver by Spouse  37.12
      • 7.  Coerced Disclosure  37.13
      • 8.  Determining Whether Waiver Has Occurred  37.14
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Waiver by Testimony at Earlier Trial  37.14A
      • 2.  Waiver by Disclosure of Distorted Version of Communication  37.14B
      • 3.  No Waiver by Agreement to Testify Truthfully  37.14C
  • II.  WHEN COURT MAY EXCLUDE PRIVILEGED EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Court’s Right to Exclude Privileged Evidence  37.15
      • 2.  Rule: When Court Should Not Exclude Privileged Evidence  37.16
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  When No One Is Authorized to Claim Privilege  37.17
      • 2.  When Privileged Information Must Be Excluded, Absent Objection  37.18
  • III.  PROHIBITION AGAINST DRAWING INFERENCES FROM EXERCISE OF PRIVILEGES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Effect of Exercise of Privilege Not to Testify  37.19
      • 2.  Rule: Instruction to Jury on Exercise of Privileges  37.20
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Why Court’s and Counsel’s Comments Prohibited  37.21
      • 2.  When Comments Not Barred  37.22
  • IV.  COMMUNICATIONS PRESUMED CONFIDENTIAL FOR CERTAIN PRIVILEGES
    • A.  Rule: Presumption That Certain Communications Are Privileged  37.23
    • B.  Judicial Comment  37.24
  • V.  COURT PROCEDURE FOR RULING ON PRIVILEGES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Court Usually May Not Require Disclosure in Order to Rule  37.25
      • 2.  Rule: In Camera Disclosure When Exception to Privilege Asserted  37.26
      • 3.  Rule: Procedure When Court Rules on Claim of Official-Information, Identity-of-Informer, Trade-Secret, or Attorney Work Product Privileges  37.27
      • 4.  Rule: Special Rule on Pen C §1524(c) Search Warrants  37.28
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Generally Privileged Information Cannot Be Disclosed to Enable Court to Rule  37.29
      • 2.  When In Camera Disclosure Authorized  37.30
      • 3.  In Camera Hearing and Adversary Hearing Required on Validity of Certain Privileges  37.31
      • 4.  In Camera Disclosure in Certain Types of Search Warrant Cases  37.32
      • 5.  Using Court-Appointed Expert to Assist at In Camera Hearing  37.33
  • VI.  SEVERAL PRIVILEGES MAY PROTECT CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
    • A.  Rule: Several Privileges May Apply to One Communication  37.34
    • B.  Judicial Comment  37.35
  • VII.  COURTS USUALLY HAVE NO POWER TO CREATE NEW PRIVILEGES; EXCEPTIONS
    • A.  Rule: With Some Exceptions, Courts Have No Power to Create New Privileges  37.36
    • B.  Judicial Comment  37.37

38

Marital Privileges

  • I.  PRIVILEGE NOT TO TESTIFY AGAINST SPOUSE AND NOT TO BE CALLED AS WITNESS WHEN SPOUSE IS PARTY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Privilege Not to Testify Against Spouse  38.1
      • 2.  Rule: Privilege Not to Be Called as Witness Against Spouse  38.2
      • 3.  Rule: Exceptions to Privilege Not to Testify and Not to Be Called as Witness  38.3
      • 4.  Rule: Waiver of Privilege  38.4
      • 5.  Rule: No Waiver Occurs if Spouse Erroneously Forced to Waive Privilege  38.5
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Privilege Not to Testify Against Spouse  38.6
      • 2.  Privilege Not to Be Called as Witness by Adverse Party When Spouse Is Party  38.7
      • 3.  Exceptions to Privilege Not to Testify and Not to Be Called as Witness  38.8
      • 4.  Burden of Proof Is on Party Claiming Exception to Privilege  38.9
      • 5.  Waiver of Privilege by Testifying Spouse  38.10
      • 6.  Waiver of Privilege in Certain Civil Actions  38.11
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Meanings of “Child” and “Cohabitant”  38.11A
      • 2.  Action Brought for Spouse’s Immediate Benefit  38.11B
  • II.  PRIVILEGE FOR CONFIDENTIAL MARITAL COMMUNICATIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Confidential Marital Communications Protected  38.12
      • 2.  Rule: Waiver of Confidential Marital Communications Privilege  38.13
      • 3.  Rule: Exceptions to Confidential Marital Communications Privilege  38.14
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Presumption of Confidentiality for All Spousal Communications  38.15
      • 2.  Each Spouse Holds Privilege  38.16
      • 3.  Privilege Continues After Termination of Marriage  38.17
      • 4.  Privilege Does Not Apply When Spouse’s Acts Committed in Other’s Presence  38.18
      • 5.  Privilege Does Not Apply to Interrogation of Peace Officer During Internal Affairs Investigation  38.19
      • 6.  Privilege Does Not Apply to Unmarried Persons, Except Domestic Partners  38.20
      • 7.  Waiver of Confidential Marital Privilege  38.21
      • 8.  Exceptions to Rule
        • a.  No Privilege When Marital Communication Was in Aid of Crime  38.22
        • b.  No Privilege in Competency, Guardianship, or Conservatorship Action Involving Spouse  38.23
        • c.  No Privilege in Litigation Between Spouses  38.24
        • d.  No Privilege in Certain Criminal Actions Involving Spouse  38.25
        • e.  No Privilege for Communication Offered in Evidence in Criminal Action by Defendant-Spouse  38.26
        • f.  No Privilege in Certain Juvenile Court Proceedings  38.27
        • g.  No Privilege in Law Enforcement Administrative Investigations and Hearings  38.28
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Void Second Marriage  38.29
      • 2.  No Privilege for Suicide Note to Wife That Husband Destroyed  38.30
      • 3.  Communication Not “In Confidence”  38.31

39

Physician-Patient Privilege

  • I.  DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE; WHO MAY CLAIM PRIVILEGE AND WHEN
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Description and Definition of Terms for Physician-Patient Privilege  39.1
      • 2.  Rule: When Patient May Claim Privilege  39.2
      • 3.  Rule: When Physician Has Duty to Claim Privilege  39.3
      • 4.  Rule: Medical and Podiatry Corporations Included in Privilege  39.4
      • 5.  Rule: When Physician-Patient Privilege Does Not Apply  39.5
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Broad Concept of “Physician”  39.6
      • 2.  Privilege Applies to Medical Examination for Diagnosis or Treatment  39.7
      • 3.  Physical, Mental, and Emotional Conditions Covered  39.8
      • 4.  Information Included in Confidential Communication  39.9
      • 5.  Only Confidential Communications Covered; Broad Coverage  39.10
      • 6.  Effect of Presence of Third Persons  39.11
      • 7.  Death of Patient Does Not Terminate Privilege  39.12
      • 8.  Eavesdropper on Privileged Communication May Not Testify  39.13
      • 9.  Persons Who May and Who Are Required to Claim Privilege  39.14
      • 10.  Additional Authorities on Medical Information  39.15
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Constitutional Compulsion to Narrowly Construe Patient-Litigant Exception  39.15A
      • 2.  Patient Unable to Communicate With Physicians  39.15B
      • 3.  Patient’s Disclosure to Insurance Company  39.16
  • II.  EXCEPTIONS TO PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Patient-Litigant Exception  39.17
      • 2.  Rule: Crime or Tort Exception  39.18
      • 3.  Rule: Criminal Proceeding Exception  39.19
      • 4.  Rule: Exception for Parties Claiming Through Deceased Patient  39.20
      • 5.  Rule: Breach of Duty Exception  39.21
      • 6.  Rule: Intention of Deceased Patient About Writing or About Validity of Writing That Concerns Property Exception  39.22
      • 7.  Rule: Commitment, Competence, or Similar Proceeding Concerning Patient  39.23
      • 8.  Rule: Required-Report Exception  39.24
      • 9.  Rule: Proceeding to Terminate Right, License, or Privilege  39.25
      • 10.  Rule: Patient’s Condition in Proceeding to Recover Damages  39.26
      • 11.  Rule: Waiver  39.27
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  No Privilege in Action in Which Patient Tenders Issue of Own Condition  39.28
      • 2.  No Privilege for Communication Relating to Patient’s Condition in Proceeding to Recover Damages if Good Cause for Disclosure Is Shown  39.29
      • 3.  No Privilege for Subpoenaed Records in Medical Board Investigations  39.29A
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Assertion of Privilege by Personal Representative  39.30

40

Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege

  • I.  DEFINITION OF TERMS; WHO MAY CLAIM PRIVILEGE AND WHEN
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Psychotherapist”  40.1
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Patient”  40.2
      • 3.  Rule: Definition of “Confidential Communications Between Patient and Psychotherapist”  40.3
      • 4.  Rule: Definition of “Holder of Privilege”  40.4
      • 5.  Rule: Scope of Patient’s Privilege to Refuse to Disclose  40.5
      • 6.  Rule: Psychotherapist’s Duty to Claim Privilege  40.6
      • 7.  Rule: When Psychotherapist May Not Claim Privilege  40.7
      • 8.  Rule: Privilege Extends to Psychotherapy Corporation  40.8
      • 9.  Rule: When Privilege Does Not Apply  40.9
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Broad Meaning of “Psychotherapist” for Privilege  40.10
      • 2.  Meaning of Confidential Communication  40.11
      • 3.  Communication May Be Confidential Though Disclosed to Third Persons  40.12
      • 4.  Confidentiality Not Lost by Inadvertent Disclosure  40.13
      • 5.  Presumption of Confidentiality  40.14
      • 6.  Holder of Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege  40.15
      • 7.  Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Not Terminated by Patient’s Death  40.16
      • 8.  Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Has Narrower Scope Than Physician-Patient Privilege  40.17
      • 9.  Duty of Psychotherapist to Claim Privilege  40.18
      • 10.  Applicability of Privilege in Juvenile Court Proceedings  40.19
      • 11.  When Privilege Yields to Constitutional Rights in Criminal Cases  40.20
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Bonding Study Does Not Create Psychotherapist-Patient Relationship  40.20A
      • 2.  Parents’ Communications About Child’s Condition  40.20B
  • II.  EXCEPTIONS TO PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Patient-Litigant Exception  40.21
      • 2.  Rule: Exception for Court-Appointed Psychotherapist  40.22
      • 3.  Rule: Crime or Tort Exception  40.23
      • 4.  Rule: Exception for Parties Claiming Through Deceased Patient  40.24
      • 5.  Rule: Exception for Breach of Duty Arising From Psychotherapist-Patient Relationship  40.25
      • 6.  Rule: When Issue Involves Intention of Deceased Patient Regarding Will or Other Writing Affecting Property, or Validity of Document  40.26
      • 7.  Rule: Exception for Proceeding to Rule on Criminal Defendant’s Sanity  40.27
      • 8.  Rule: Exception for Patient Dangerous to Self, Others, or Property  40.28
      • 9.  Rule: Exception for Proceeding to Establish Competence  40.29
      • 10.  Rule: Exception for Required Report  40.30
      • 11.  Rule: Exception for Crime Victim Under Age 16  40.31
      • 12.  Rule: Waiver by Disclosure or Consent to Disclosure  40.32
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Tender of Issue by Patient of Mental or Emotional Condition  40.33
      • 2.  When Psychotherapist Is Appointed by Court  40.34
      • 3.  Patient Dangerous to Self or Others  40.35
      • 4.  No Privilege for Information Required to Be Reported if Law Does Not Restrict Disclosure  40.36
      • 5.  No Privilege if Patient Is Crime Victim Under 16  40.37
      • 6.  Privilege Does Not Bar Disclosure of Subpoenaed Records in Medical Board Investigations  40.37A
      • 7.  Waiver of Privilege  40.38
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Failure to Object to Subpoena for Medical Records Results in Waiver of Privilege  40.39
      • 2.  Privilege Not Waived by Third Party  40.40

41

Clergy-Penitent, Counselor-Victim, and Similar Privileges

  • I.  CLERGY-PENITENT PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Terms Defined  41.1
      • 2.  Rule: Penitent’s Privilege  41.2
      • 3.  Rule: Clergy Member’s Privilege  41.3
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Broad Definition of Clergy Member  41.4
      • 2.  Concept of Penitent Does Not Require Membership in Any Church or Religious Group  41.5
      • 3.  No Requirement That Communication Be of Confessional Nature  41.6
      • 4.  Four Conditions Must Be Satisfied for Valid Application of Penitent Privilege  41.7
      • 5.  No Exceptions to Privilege  41.8
      • 6.  Difference Between Penitent’s and Clergy Member’s Privilege  41.9
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Documents Relating to Allegations of Sexual Assault of Children by Priests  41.10
  • II.  RULES: SEXUAL ASSAULT COUNSELOR-VICTIM PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Terms Defined  41.11
      • 2.  Rule: Victim’s Privilege  41.12
      • 3.  Rule: Counselor’s Privilege  41.13
      • 4.  Rule: No Privilege if No Holder of Privilege  41.14
      • 5.  Rule: No Privilege if Privilege Waived  41.15
      • 6.  Rule: Court’s Determination on Whether Privilege Applies  41.16
    • B.  Illustration of Rule: Student Informs Teacher With Rape Crisis Counseling Training and Experience of Abuse  41.16A
  • III.  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELOR-VICTIM PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of Terms  41.17
      • 2.  Rule: Victim’s Privilege  41.18
      • 3.  Rule: Counselor’s Privilege  41.19
      • 4.  Rule: When Disclosure May Be Compelled  41.20
      • 5.  Rule: Disclosure When Victim Is Dead or Not Complaining Witness in Criminal Case  41.21
      • 6.  Rule: Child Abuse Cases  41.22
      • 7.  Rule: Procedures  41.23
      • 8.  Rule: Effect on Mandatory Child Abuse Reporting  41.24
      • 9.  Rule: Waiver  41.25
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Meaning of Confidential Communication Between Victim and Counselor  41.26
      • 2.  Importance of Victim’s Claiming Privilege to Preclude Disclosure  41.27
      • 3.  Independent Duty of Domestic Violence Counselor to Claim Privilege  41.28
      • 4.  When Court May Compel Disclosure of Information Received by Counselor  41.29
  • IV.  HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASEWORKER-VICTIM PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rule: Definition of Terms  41.30
    • B.  Rule: Victim’s Privilege  41.31
    • C.  Rule: Caseworker’s Claim of Privilege  41.32
    • D.  Rule: Waiver  41.32A
    • E.  Rule: When Disclosure May Be Compelled  41.33

42

Lawyer-Client Privilege

  • I.  WHO MAY CLAIM PRIVILEGE AND WHEN
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Lawyer”  42.1
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Client”  42.2
      • 3.  Rule: Definition of “Confidential Communication Between Client and Lawyer”  42.3
      • 4.  Rule: Definition of “Holder of Privilege”  42.4
      • 5.  Rule: Law Firm Included in Privilege  42.5
      • 6.  Rule: Client’s Privilege to Refuse to Disclose Confidential Communication Between Client and Lawyer  42.6
      • 7.  Rule: Lawyer’s Duty to Claim Privilege  42.7
      • 8.  Rule: When Lawyer May Not Claim Privilege  42.8
      • 9.  Rule: When Privilege Does Not Apply  42.9
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Broad Concept of “Lawyer” for Lawyer-Client Privilege  42.10
      • 2.  “Client” Includes Both Natural Person and Legal or Artificial Person  42.11
      • 3.  Client’s Consultation With Lawyer May Be Direct or Through Agent or Employee  42.12
      • 4.  Consultation Without Retaining Lawyer Is Sufficient to Create Lawyer-Client Relationship  42.13
      • 5.  Lawyer-Client Communications Must Be Confidential and Made During Relationship; Presumption of Confidentiality  42.14
      • 6.  Information Transmitted to Lawyer Must Constitute “Communication”  42.15
      • 7.  Privilege Does Not Protect Physical, Crime-Related Evidence in Possession of Defense Counsel  42.16
      • 8.  Meaning of “Confidential Communication” as Applied to Document or Writing  42.17
      • 9.  Privilege Protects Lawyer’s Legal Opinions and Advice Given to Client  42.18
      • 10.  Third Person’s Communication to Lawyer Must Emanate From Client and Concern Confidential Data  42.19
      • 11.  Trial Judge Must Learn Whether Expert’s Report to Lawyer Emanated From Client  42.20
      • 12.  Effect of Accidental or Unauthorized Out-of-Court Disclosure of Communication  42.21
      • 13.  Effect on Confidentiality of Disclosure of Information to Third Persons  42.22
      • 14.  Persons Entitled to Claim Privilege; Lawyer Must Claim Privilege  42.23
      • 15.  Privilege Does Not Terminate Until After Distribution of Client’s Estate  42.24
      • 16.  When Client’s Identity and Fee Arrangement May Be Disclosed  42.25
      • 17.  Waiver of and Exceptions to Privilege  42.26
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Identification of Client in Trust Setting  42.27
      • 2.  Clients’ Names Constitute Confidential Communication  42.27A
      • 3.  Receipt of Inadvertently Disclosed Privileged Documents From Clients Triggers Duty  42.27B
  • II.  PRIVILEGE WHEN CORPORATION IS CLIENT; OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHO SPEAKS FOR CORPORATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Corporation as Client  42.28
      • 2.  Rule: Confidential Communication by Employee or Officer of Corporation Who May Be Charged With Liability  42.29
      • 3.  Rule: When Communication by Corporate Employee or Officer Who Could Not Be Charged With Liability Is Confidential  42.30
      • 4.  Rule: Statements by Officers and Employees Who Are Witnesses  42.31
      • 5.  Rule: Communication From Officer or Employee Who Is Neither Person Charged With Liability Nor Witness  42.32
      • 6.  Rule: Effect of Employer’s Independent Agent Obtaining Otherwise Confidential Report  42.33
      • 7.  Rule: Effect on Confidentiality of Giving Report to Employer’s Insurance Company  42.34
      • 8.  Rule: Officer’s or Employee’s Unrequested Report Is Not Confidential  42.35
      • 9.  Rule: Confidentiality of Report Requested by Insurance Company and Forwarded to Lawyer  42.36
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Special Privilege Rules Apply When Client Is Corporation  42.37
      • 2.  Who May Communicate for Client When Client Is Corporation  42.38
      • 3.  Corporation’s Communication to Counsel and Counsel’s Advice on Business Matters [Deleted]  42.39
      • 4.  Report of Incident by Officer or Employee Who Is Participant in Incident  42.40
      • 5.  Report of Officer or Employee Who Witnesses Incident But Is Not Participant  42.41
      • 6.  Report of Incident by Officer or Employee Neither Witness Nor Participant in Incident  42.42
      • 7.  Dominant Purpose Rule on Reports Made by Officers or Employees at Corporation’s Request  42.43
      • 8.  Effect of Request by Corporation’s Liability Insurance Carrier for Officer’s or Employee’s Report  42.44
      • 9.  Effect of Officer’s or Employee’s Report Being Made Without Corporation’s Express Direction  42.45
      • 10.  Effect of Insurance Carrier’s Failure to Advise Corporation of Purpose in Seeking Officer’s or Employee’s Report  42.46
      • 11.  On Corporate Merger, Attorney-Client Privilege Passes to Successor Corporation and Cannot Be Waived by Officers of Merged Corporation  42.47
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: What Officer or Employee Speaks for Corporation?  42.47A
  • III.  EXCEPTIONS TO PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Crime or Fraud Exception  42.48
      • 2.  Rule: Exception When Disclosure Necessary to Prevent Client’s Violent Criminal Act  42.49
      • 3.  Rule: Exception for Parties Claiming Through Deceased Client  42.50
      • 4.  Rule: Exception for Breach of Duty Arising From Lawyer-Client Relationship  42.51
      • 5.  Rule: Exception for Lawyer as Attesting Witness  42.52
      • 6.  Rule: Exception for Deceased Client’s Intention Concerning Writing Affecting Property Interest  42.53
      • 7.  Rule: Exception for Validity of Writing Affecting Property Interest  42.54
      • 8.  Rule: Joint-Clients Exception  42.55
      • 9.  Rule: Waiver of Privilege  42.56
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  No Privilege if Lawyer’s Services Are Sought for Crime or Fraud  42.57
      • 2.  No Privilege if Disclosure Is Necessary to Prevent Client’s Violent Criminal Act  42.58
      • 3.  No Privilege if All Parties Claim Through Deceased Client  42.59
      • 4.  No Privilege When Issue Involves Breach of Duty Arising From Lawyer-Client Relationship  42.60
      • 5.  No Privilege When Issue Involves Client’s Intention or Competence in Executing Attested Document of Which Lawyer Is Attesting Witness  42.61
      • 6.  No Privilege When Issue Involves Validity of Deceased Client’s Deed, Will, or Other Writing Affecting Property, or Intention as to Such Document  42.62
      • 7.  Litigation Between Joint Clients or Their Respective Successors in Interest  42.63
      • 8.  Waiver of Privilege  42.64
      • 9.  Availability of Corporate Shareholder or Director Exceptions to Attorney-Client Privilege  42.65
      • 10.  No Attorney-Client Privilege for Public Records  42.66
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Joint-Client Exception; Exception for Litigation Involving Parties Who Claim From or Through Deceased Client  42.67
      • 2.  Joint-Client Exception; Contractual Waiver; “In Issue” Waiver  42.68
      • 3.  When Client Tenders Issue of Former Lawyer’s Conduct and State of Mind  42.69

43

Attorney Work Product Doctrine

  • I.  RULES
    • A.  Rule: When Work Product Is Protected  43.1
    • B.  Rule: Materials Not Considered Work Product  43.2
    • C.  Rule: In Camera Inspection  43.3
    • D.  Rule: Length of Time Rule Lasts  43.4
    • E.  Rule: Effect of Notice That Expert Will Testify  43.5
    • F.  Rule: Waiver  43.6
    • G.  Rule: Attorney Is Exclusive Holder of Protected Work Product  43.7
    • H.  Rule: Doctrine Applies to Work Product of Litigant In Propria Persona  43.8
    • I.  Special Exceptions to Work Product Doctrine
      • 1.  Rule: Official Law Enforcement Investigation or Action by Prosecutor When Attorney Suspected of Participating in Crime or Fraud  43.9
      • 2.  Rule: Disciplinary Charges Pending Against Attorney  43.10
      • 3.  Rule: Action Between Attorney and Client Involving Attorney’s Breach of Duty  43.11
  • II.  JUDICIAL COMMENTS
    • A.  Protection of Work Product Is Partly Absolute and Partly Conditional  43.12
    • B.  Policy Underlying Work Product Doctrine  43.13
    • C.  Procedure for Ruling on Claim of Conditional Portion of Work Product Doctrine  43.14
    • D.  What Constitutes Attorney Work Product Is Only Partly Defined by Statute  43.15
    • E.  Nonderivative or Noninterpretative Matters Not Considered Work Product  43.16
    • F.  Persons Entitled to Claim Protection Under Work Product Doctrine  43.17
    • G.  Waiver of Right to Work Product Claim  43.18
    • H.  Disclosure to Client Not Waiver  43.19
    • I.  Response to Audit Inquiry Not Waiver  43.20
    • J.  Inadvertent Receipt of Privileged Documents  43.21
    • K.  Applicability of Crime-Fraud Exception to Work Product Doctrine  43.22
    • L.  Effect of Consultant-Expert Becoming Prospective Witness on Protection Under Work Product Doctrine  43.23
    • M.  When Protection Under Work Product Doctrine Ends  43.24
    • N.  Relationship Between Work Product Doctrine and Lawyer-Client Privilege  43.25
  • III.  ILLUSTRATIONS OF RULES
    • A.  Raw Notes and Written Statements of Defense Witness Interviews in Criminal Case  43.26
    • B.  Work Product Doctrine Applies to Lawyer’s Legal Counseling Work in Case  43.27
    • C.  Absolute Protection for Work Product Not Waived by Disclosure of Information to Client in Confidence  43.28

44

Official-Information Privilege

  • I.  OFFICIAL-INFORMATION PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Official Information”  44.1
      • 2.  Rule: When Public Entity Has Absolute Privilege  44.2
      • 3.  Rule: When Public Entity Has Conditional Privilege  44.3
      • 4.  Rule: Privilege Waived if Public Entity Consents to Disclosure  44.4
      • 5.  Rule: Definition of “Public Entity”  44.5
      • 6.  Rule: Tax Returns  44.6
      • 7.  Rule: Court’s “Balancing” Procedure; When Conditional Privilege Protects Documents  44.7
      • 8.  Rule: Release of Certain Information to Law Enforcement  44.8
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Information Public Entity Employee Acquires Is Confidential  44.9
      • 2.  Privilege Must Be Claimed by Person Authorized by Public Entity  44.10
      • 3.  Conditional Portion of Privilege; Balancing Process  44.11
      • 4.  Statute May Make Public Entity Information Confidential, Yet Allow Disclosure  44.12
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Criminal Defendant Seeks Information on Own Activities in Law Enforcement Files; Conditional Privilege  44.13
      • 2.  Records of Internal Police Investigations  44.13A
  • II.  POLICE OR CUSTODIAL OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Notice  44.14
      • 2.  Rule: Requirements for Motion  44.15
      • 3.  Rule: In Camera Examination of Materials Required for Discovery Purposes  44.16
      • 4.  Rule: Information Available From Another Source  44.17
      • 5.  Rule: Order to Protect Officer and Agency  44.18
      • 6.  Rule: Uses of Officer Records That Are Disclosed  44.19
      • 7.  Rule: Certain Officers’ Records Not Subject to Disclosure  44.20
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Criminal Defendant’s Judicially Created Right to Discovery  44.21
      • 2.  Matters Generally Sought From Officers’ Personnel Files; Uses for Information  44.22
      • 3.  Legislation Defining and Limiting Discovery of Officers’ Personnel Records  44.23
      • 4.  Affidavit or Declaration Under Evid C §1043  44.24
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Insufficient Showing of Good Cause in Discovery of Personnel Records in Civil Proceeding  44.25
      • 2.  Retired Officer Serves as Expert Witness for Law Enforcement Agency  44.26
      • 3.  Confidential Surveillance Location  44.27

45

Identity-of-Informer Privilege

  • I.  REQUIREMENTS; WHAT MUST BE DISCLOSED AND WHEN
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Informer”  45.1
      • 2.  Rule: Privilege When Disclosure Forbidden by Act or Statute  45.2
      • 3.  Rule: Definition of “Public Entity”  45.3
      • 4.  Rule: Consent to Disclosure  45.4
      • 5.  Rule: Interest of Public Entity May Not Be Considered  45.5
      • 6.  Rule: Informer May Disclose Own Identity  45.6
      • 7.  Rule: No Disclosure to Attack Probable Cause  45.7
      • 8.  Rule: Stage of Proceedings When Motion to Disclose Informer May Be Raised  45.8
      • 9.  Rule: Three Stages of Informer Motion  45.9
      • 10.  Rule: Eleazer Hearing Regarding Present Location of Informer  45.10
      • 11.  Rule: Establishing Informer’s Reliability in Warrantless Search Case  45.11
      • 12.  Rule: Informer Issues When Search Warrant Traversed  45.12
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Defense Showing of Materiality  45.13
      • 2.  Kind of Evidence Required for Defendant’s Demonstration That Informer Is Material Witness  45.14
      • 3.  Examples of When Informer Has Been Shown to Be Material Witness to Defendant’s Innocence  45.15
      • 4.  Anonymous Informers  45.16
      • 5.  Identity of Informer Need Not Be Disclosed on Issue of Probable Cause  45.17
      • 6.  Prosecution Must Disclose Location of Informer in Addition to Identity  45.18
      • 7.  Individual Who Unknowingly Gives Information to Undercover Police Officer Is Not Informer  45.19
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Defendant Must Show That Informer Might Give Exonerating Testimony for Defendant  45.20
      • 2.  Defendant Seeks Informer’s Identity at Preliminary Hearing, Based Solely on Prosecution’s Evidence  45.21
      • 3.  When No Evidence That Exonerates Defendant; Effect of Informer’s Participation In Earlier Uncharged Sales  45.21A
      • 4.  Defendant Seeks Informer’s Identity on Theory Informer Would Confirm Possession for Personal Use  45.21B
      • 5.  Defendant Supports Motion With Declaration Made on Information and Belief  45.21C
  • II.  SANCTIONS AGAINST PROSECUTION FOR NONDISCLOSURE OF INFORMER’S IDENTITY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Sanctions When Finding Made Adverse to Prosecution  45.22
      • 2.  Rule: Court Not to Make Finding Adverse to Prosecution When Disclosure Based on Valid Search Warrant  45.23
    • B.  Judicial Comment  45.24
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Sanctions Against Prosecution for Refusing to Reveal Surveillance Location  45.24A
  • III.  HEARINGS TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Three Stages to Informer Motion  45.25
      • 2.  Rule: Procedures at In Camera Hearing  45.26
      • 3.  Rule: Delayed Request for In Camera Hearing  45.27
      • 4.  Rule: Criminal Defendant May Not Compel Court to Hold In Camera Hearing  45.28
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  When Both Defense and Prosecution Allowed to Argue at Hearings  45.29
      • 2.  Adversary Hearing Must Be Held Out of Jury’s Presence  45.30
      • 3.  Effect of Prosecution’s Failure to Request In Camera Hearing  45.31
      • 4.  Must Informer Be Produced at In Camera Hearing Under Evid C §1042(d)?  45.32
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Burden of Protecting Defendant’s Rights Is on Judge When Search Warrant Is Involved  45.33

46

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

  • I.  SEPARATE PRIVILEGES FOR DEFENDANT AND WITNESSES; TYPES OF WITNESSES COVERED
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Criminal Defendant Has Privilege Not to Be Called and Not to Testify  46.1
      • 2.  Rule: Other Witnesses Also Have Privilege  46.2
      • 3.  Rule: Privilege Applies to Natural Person Only, Not Corporation  46.3
      • 4.  Rule: When Witness Other Than Criminal Defendant Does Not Have Privilege  46.4
      • 5.  Rule: Public Employees  46.5
      • 6.  Rule: Witness Who Is Supervised or Regulated by Public Entity  46.6
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Proceedings Considered Criminal Actions for Defendant’s Privilege Not to Testify  46.7
      • 2.  Codefendant May Refuse to Testify; Privilege Must Be Claimed on Each Question  46.8
      • 3.  Privilege May Be Claimed Outside Jury’s Presence  46.9
      • 4.  Privilege Applies to Evidence Sought by Discovery Procedures and by Testimony at Trial  46.10
      • 5.  Right of Officer or Member/Custodian of Records to Claim Privilege for Documents of Unincorporated Organization  46.11
      • 6.  Privilege for Reports Required of Person Engaged in Regulated Activity or Business  46.12
      • 7.  Statutes Requiring Disclosure May Violate Privilege  46.13
      • 8.  Exclusionary Rules Based on Privilege  46.14
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Nonparty Deponents in Civil Action Refuse Discovery Based on Possible Out-of-State Conspiracy Charges  46.14A
  • II.  MEANING OF SELF-INCRIMINATION PRIVILEGE; COMPULSORY TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE BARRED
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Described  46.15
      • 2.  Rule: When Evidence Will Tend to Incriminate Person  46.16
      • 3.  Rule: Immunity  46.17
      • 4.  Rule: Nontestimonial Evidence  46.18
      • 5.  Rule: Effect of Use of Brutal Force  46.19
      • 6.  Rule: When Testimony May Be Compelled  46.20
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Evidence Is Incriminating if It May Reveal, by Reasonable Inference Only, Witness’s Possible Commission of Crime  46.21
      • 2.  Difference Between State and Federal Incrimination  46.22
      • 3.  Privilege Does Not Apply if Claimant Is Immune From Prosecution  46.23
      • 4.  Privilege Applies Only to Compulsory Testimony  46.24
      • 5.  Physical Evidence May Be Extracted Against Defendant’s Will  46.25
      • 6.  Adverse Inference and Comment Permissible if Defendant Refuses to Give Nontestimonial Evidence  46.26
      • 7.  Physical Evidence Obtained From Unlawful Search or Seizure Is Inadmissible  46.27
      • 8.  Privilege Applies Before Sentencing and Continues on Appeal  46.28
      • 9.  Defendant’s Statements to Psychiatrist Examining Defendant Concerning Insanity or Incompetency Inadmissible During Guilt Phase When Defendant Does Not Place Mental State in Issue  46.29
      • 10.  Violation of Privilege to Require Defendant to Reveal Uncharged Priors  46.30
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Self-Incrimination Privilege at Deposition  46.30A
      • 2.  Criminal Defendant Required to Read Statements in Jury’s Presence  46.30B
      • 3.  Civil Defendant Claims Privilege Because of Possibility of Deportation  46.30C
      • 4.  Civil Defendant Asked Questions to Establish Paternity  46.30D
  • III.  BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Burden of Producing Evidence  46.31
      • 2.  Rule: Evidence on Which Person Claiming Privilege May Rely  46.32
      • 3.  Rule: Court’s Ruling  46.33
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Witness Claiming Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Has Burden of Proof  46.34
      • 2.  When In Camera Hearing Is Appropriate  46.35
  • IV.  PROHIBITION AGAINST COMMENTING ON OR DRAWING INFERENCES FROM EXERCISE OF PRIVILEGE; INSTRUCTING JURY
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: No Comment, Presumption, or Inference When Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Exercised  46.36
      • 2.  Rule: Jury Instruction Regarding No Presumption and No Inference  46.37
      • 3.  Rule: Comment and Instruction on Criminal Defendant’s Failure to Explain or Deny  46.38
      • 4.  Rule: Sanctions in Civil Cases When Party Exercises Privilege Against Self-Incrimination  46.39
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  No Adverse Inference or Comment Permitted Because of Exercise of Privilege; Griffin Rule  46.40
      • 2.  No Exception to Griffin Rule for Prior Exercise of Privilege and Subsequent Waiver  46.41
      • 3.  Codefendant’s Lawyer Cannot Comment on Exercise of Privilege  46.42
      • 4.  Instructing Jury Not to Draw Inferences From Exercise of Privilege  46.43
      • 5.  Comment and Adverse Inferences Permissible When Criminal Defendant Testifies  46.44
      • 6.  Possible Sanctions Against Party to Civil Action Who Exercises Privilege  46.45
      • 7.  Federal Law  46.46
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Prosecutor Cannot Comment on Defendant’s Failure to Testify  46.46A
      • 2.  Privilege Need Not Be Claimed in Jury’s Presence  46.46B
      • 3.  Jury Instruction Regarding No Presumption and No Inference  46.46C
      • 4.  Criminal Defendant Who “Opens the Door” While Testifying  46.46D
      • 5.  Defendant’s Request for Immunity in Civil Case  46.46E
  • V.  WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE BY TESTIFYING
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Criminal Defendant’s Waiver on Testifying  46.47
      • 2.  Rule: Effect of Waiver of Privilege  46.48
      • 3.  Rule: Witness’s Waiver on Facts Related to Witness’s Testimony  46.49
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Criminal Defendant’s Waiver of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination by Testifying  46.50
      • 2.  Waiver of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination When Defendant Pleads Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity  46.51
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Codefendant’s Desire to Waive Privilege and Testify  46.52
      • 2.  Defendant Who Testifies at Own Trial May Refuse to Testify at Codefendant’s Trial  46.53
      • 3.  Witness Testifies at Preliminary Hearing But Refuses to Testify at Trial  46.54

47

Burdens of Proof and of Producing Evidence

Hon. Arthur Gilbert

  • I.  BURDEN OF PROOF
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Burden of Proof”  47.1
      • 2.  Burden of Proof Contrasted With Burden of Producing Evidence and Burden of Raising Issue  47.2
      • 3.  Rule: Definition of “Preponderance of Evidence”  47.3
      • 4.  Rule: Definition of “Clear and Convincing Proof”  47.4
      • 5.  Rule: Definition of “Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt”  47.5
      • 6.  Rule: Definition of “Proof to Raise Reasonable Doubt”  47.6
      • 7.  Rule: Usual Burden of Proof Is by Preponderance of Evidence  47.7
      • 8.  Rule: Allocation of Burden of Proof Between Parties  47.8
      • 9.  Rule: Court Must Instruct Jury on Burden of Proof  47.9
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Burden of Proof Deals With Task of Convincing Trier of Fact of Existence or Nonexistence of Fact  47.10
      • 2.  Burden of Proof Applies Both to Preliminary Facts and to Determinative Issues  47.11
      • 3.  Degree of Persuasion, Belief, or Conviction Required to Sustain Burden of Proof  47.12
      • 4.  Standard of Proof Required May Be Other Than Usual Categories  47.13
      • 5.  Application of Burden of Proof Does Not Require Judge to Be Convinced of Truth of One Party’s Evidence  47.14
      • 6.  General Rule: Party Must Prove Facts Essential to Cause of Action or Defense  47.15
      • 7.  Limitation on Statutory Power to Allocate Burden of Proof in Criminal Case  47.16
      • 8.  Assigning Criminal Defendant Burden of Proof on Guilt Issue  47.17
      • 9.  Assigning to Prosecution Burden of Proof of Lesser Degree Than Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Criminal Case  47.18
      • 10.  Statutory Assignments of Burden of Proof on Specified Claims  47.19
      • 11.  Court’s Duty to Instruct  47.20
      • 12.  Burden of Proof Standards on Particular Issues
        • a.  Issues in Civil Cases  47.21
        • b.  Issues in Dissolution, Dependency, and Elder Abuse Cases
          • (1)  Dissolution of Marriage  47.22
          • (2)  Juvenile Dependency  47.23
          • (3)  Elder Abuse  47.24
        • c.  Issues in Criminal Cases  47.25
        • d.  Issues Concerning Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act and Probate Court
          • (1)  LPS Act  47.26
          • (2)  Probate Court Proceedings  47.27
  • II.  BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Burden of Producing Evidence”  47.28
      • 2.  Rule: Burden of Producing Evidence on Particular Fact or Issue Is Initially on Party With Burden of Proof on That Fact or Issue  47.29
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Initial Coincidence of Two Burdens Applies Irrespective of Issue  47.30
      • 2.  Burden of Producing Evidence May Shift From Party Having Burden of Proof to Opponent  47.31
      • 3.  Degree of Persuasion Involved in Meeting Burden of Producing Evidence  47.32

48

Presumptions

  • I.  DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESUMPTION AND INFERENCE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Definition of “Inference”  48.1
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Presumption”  48.2
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Inference Is Permissive Deduction of One Fact From Another  48.3
      • 2.  Presumption Is Compelled or Required Assumption of Fact  48.4
  • II.  TYPES OF PRESUMPTIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Types of Presumptions  48.5
      • 2.  Rule: Definition of “Conclusive Presumption”  48.6
      • 3.  Rule: Definition of “Rebuttable Presumption Affecting Burden of Producing Evidence”  48.7
      • 4.  Rule: Definition of “Rebuttable Presumption Affecting Burden of Proof”  48.8
      • 5.  Rule: In Absence of Classification of Rebuttable Presumptions, Court Must Classify  48.9
      • 6.  Rule: One Fact as Prima Facie Evidence of Another Is Rebuttable Presumption  48.10
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Conclusive Presumption Compared to Rebuttable Presumption  48.11
      • 2.  Conclusive Presumptions in Evidence Code  48.12
      • 3.  How Court Classifies Rebuttable Presumptions  48.13
      • 4.  Distinguishing Presumption Affecting Burden of Producing Evidence From Presumption Affecting Burden of Proof  48.14
      • 5.  Differences in Operation of Rebuttable Presumption Concerning Burden of Proof and of Producing Evidence  48.15
      • 6.  Party Must Establish Basic Facts Giving Rise to Presumption  48.16
      • 7.  Using Words “Presumed” and “Presumption” When Instructing Jury That Presumption Applies  48.17
  • III.  PRESUMPTIONS AFFECTING BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; METHOD OF OPERATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Effect of Presumption Affecting Burden of Producing Evidence  48.18
      • 2.  Rule: When Basic Fact Not in Question and Insufficient Evidence to Prove Nonexistence of Presumed Fact  48.19
      • 3.  Rule: When Basic Facts Are in Question and Insufficient Evidence to Prove Nonexistence of Presumed Fact  48.20
      • 4.  Rule: Presumption Disappears if Sufficient Evidence to Show Presumed Fact Does Not Exist  48.21
      • 5.  Rule: May Instruct Jury on Inference When Presumption Has Disappeared  48.22
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Adverse Party’s Alternatives Concerning Evidence to Dispute Existence of Basic Facts or of Presumed Fact; Duty of Trier of Fact  48.23
        • a.  Opposing Presumption by Evidence to Rebut Existence of Basic Facts Only  48.24
        • b.  Opposing Presumption by Evidence to Rebut Existence of Presumed Fact  48.25
      • 2.  After Presumption Disappears, Jury May Draw Inference  48.26
      • 3.  Special Case: Jury Instructions for Res Ipsa Loquitur Presumption  48.27
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Presumption of Receipt Arising From Proof of Service  48.27A
      • 2.  Res Ipsa Loquitur Presumption Not Applicable in Slip-and-Fall Case  48.27B
  • IV.  LIST OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS AFFECTING BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE  48.28
  • V.  PRESUMPTION AFFECTING BURDEN OF PROOF; METHOD OF OPERATION
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Effect of Presumption Affecting Burden of Proof  48.29
      • 2.  Rule: When No or Insufficient Evidence to Prove Nonexistence of Presumed Fact  48.30
      • 3.  Rule: When Evidence Introduced Showing Nonexistence of Basic Fact  48.31
      • 4.  Rule: When Evidence Introduced Showing Nonexistence of Presumed Fact  48.32
      • 5.  Rule: When Evidence Introduced Showing Nonexistence of Basic and Presumed Fact  48.33
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Opposing Presumption That Affects Burden of Proof by Disputing Existence of Basic Facts Only  48.34
      • 2.  Burden of Proof Imposed on Adverse Party: Preponderance of Evidence or Higher Burden  48.35
      • 3.  Presumption May Have No Effect if Adverse Party Already Has Burden of Proof  48.36
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Presumption of At-Will Employment Affects Burden of Proof  48.36A
      • 2.  Presumption of Title Not Applicable to Transmutation by Interspousal Transaction  48.36B
  • VI.  LIST OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS AFFECTING BURDEN OF PROOF
    • A.  Various Presumptions  48.37
    • B.  Parentage  48.38
    • C.  Negligence From Violation of Statute, Ordinance, or Safety Regulation  48.39
    • D.  Owner of Legal Title to Property Is Owner of Beneficial Title Applied  48.40
    • E.  Ordinances Limiting Building Permits for Residential Purposes  48.41
    • F.  Property Acquired During Marriage in Joint Form as Community Property  48.42
  • VII.  EFFECT OF PRESUMPTIONS IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Rules Concerning Presumptions in Criminal Cases  48.43
      • 2.  Rule: Presumption for Prosecution; No Defense Evidence on Issue  48.44
      • 3.  Rule: Presumption for Prosecution; Defendant Offers Evidence on Issue  48.45
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Presumption Against Defendant Cannot Be Mandatory  48.46
      • 2.  When Presumption Against Defendant, Rational Connection Required Between Basic and Presumed Facts  48.47
      • 3.  Presumption May Not Place on Criminal Defendant Burden of Proving Nonexistence of Presumed Fact by Raising Reasonable Doubt of Its Existence  48.48
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Presumption Affecting Burden of Producing Evidence in Criminal Case  48.49

49

Judicial Notice

  • I.  MEANING AND EFFECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Judicial Notice Defined  49.1
      • 2.  Rule: Judicial Notice Must Be Authorized by Statute or Decisional Law  49.2
      • 3.  Rule: Evid C §352 and Privilege May Exclude Information  49.3
      • 4.  Rule: Judicial Notice in Later Proceedings  49.4
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Judicial Notice Usually Based on Undisputed Law or Facts  49.5
      • 2.  Matters Otherwise Subject to Judicial Notice Must Be Relevant; Evid C §352 Applies  49.6
      • 3.  Three Categories of Knowable Facts Subject to Judicial Notice  49.7
      • 4.  Judicially Noticed Facts Not Always Considered to Be True  49.8
      • 5.  Truth in Official Acts and Records  49.9
      • 6.  Truth of Facts in Court Records  49.10
      • 7.  Truth of Facts in Appellate Court Opinions  49.11
      • 8.  Truth of Facts in Orders, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Judgments  49.12
      • 9.  Limitation on Judicial Notice of Court Records in Nonadversarial Hearing  49.13
      • 10.  Federal Law  49.14
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Matter Not Subject to Judicial Notice Because Irrelevant or Excludable Under Evid C §352  49.14A
    • D.  Illustration of Rules: Matter Not Subject to Judicial Notice Because Irrelevant or Excludable Under Evid C §352  49.14B
  • II.  MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE IN ABSENCE OF PARTY’S REQUEST
    • A.  Rule: Matters for Which Judicial Notice Is Mandatory  49.15
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Mandatory Judicial Notice of Matters Under Evid C §451 Even Without Party’s Request  49.16
      • 2.  Informal Sources of Information May Be Consulted on Matter Being Judicially Noticed  49.17
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  General Inflationary Trends Are Judicially Noticeable; Specific Application to Facts Is Not  49.17A
      • 2.  Decisional Law Should Be Included in Briefs if Possible and Not Left to Judicial Notice  49.17B
      • 3.  Mandatory Notice Required of Contents of the Federal Register  49.17C
  • III.  DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE IN ABSENCE OF PARTY’S REQUEST
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Matters for Which Judicial Notice Is Discretionary  49.18
      • 2.  Rule: Judicial Notice of Computer-Generated Official Court Records of Criminal Conviction  49.19
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Court’s Discretion to Take Judicial Notice of Readily Available Information Even Absent Request  49.20
      • 2.  Law of Other States Compared With California or Federal Law  49.21
      • 3.  Resolutions and Private Acts of Congress and California Legislature  49.22
      • 4.  Regulations of Federal Public Entities Not Published in Federal Register  49.23
      • 5.  Regulations, Rules, Codes, and Ordinances of California Public Entities  49.24
      • 6.  Official Acts of Departments of Federal Government, California, and Other States  49.25
      • 7.  Facts That Are Common Knowledge Within Court’s Territorial Jurisdiction  49.26
      • 8.  Verifiable Facts  49.27
    • C.  Illustrations of Rules
      • 1.  Assessor’s Handbook  49.27A
      • 2.  County Resolution  49.27B
      • 3.  Untimely Request for Judicial Notice of Guidelines of the California Department of Education  49.27C
  • IV.  DISCRETIONARY JUDICIAL NOTICE MADE MANDATORY ON PARTY’S REQUEST
    • A.  Rule: Notice Must Be Taken of Matters Specified for Discretionary Judicial Notice  49.28
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Requirement of Notice to Each Adverse Party of Party’s Request for Judicial Notice  49.29
      • 2.  Amount of Time Required for Notice  49.30
      • 3.  Party Requesting Judicial Notice Must Supply Court With Sufficient Information
        • a.  Party Has Burden of Producing Sufficient Information  49.31
        • b.  Determining Whether Information Is Sufficient  49.32
      • 4.  Matter Must Be Proper Subject for Discretionary Judicial Notice  49.33
      • 5.  Federal Law  49.34
    • C.  Illustrations of Rule
      • 1.  Notice After Trial Sufficient for Judicial Notice Concerning Judgment  49.34A
      • 2.  Party Failed to Provide Sufficient Information to Convince Court  49.34B
      • 3.  Clerk’s Transcript Contains No Order Granting Judicial Notice  49.34C
  • V.  SOURCES OF INFORMATION THAT COURT MAY USE IN TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Any Source of Pertinent Information May Be Consulted  49.35
      • 2.  Rule: Experts  49.36
      • 3.  Rule: Law Other Than of United States  49.37
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Any Reliable Source of Information May Be Consulted  49.38
      • 2.  Information From Experts  49.39
      • 3.  Source References for Judicial Notice Not Admitted in Evidence as Exhibits  49.40
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Contract Between Private Parties  49.40A
  • VI.  COURT’S DUTIES
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: Parties Must Be Afforded Reasonable Opportunity to Present Information to Court  49.41
      • 2.  Rule: Issues Concerning Which Parties May Present Information  49.42
      • 3.  Rule: Information Not Received in Open Court  49.43
      • 4.  Rule: Jury May Not Reconsider Matters Judicially Noticed  49.44
      • 5.  Rule: Court Must Deny Request for Judicial Notice as Soon as Possible and on Record  49.45
    • B.  Judicial Comments
      • 1.  Each Party Must Be Given Opportunity to Dispute Judicial Notice  49.46
      • 2.  Notice and Hearing Procedure Not Applicable to Judicial Notice of Specified Matters  49.47
      • 3.  Making Information and Its Source Part of Record  49.48
      • 4.  Instructing Jury on Judicially Noticed Matter  49.49
      • 5.  Federal Law  49.50
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Court Takes Judicial Notice Without Giving Notice to Parties  49.50A
  • VII.  JUDICIAL NOTICE BY REVIEWING COURT
    • A.  Rules
      • 1.  Rule: When Reviewing Court Must Take Judicial Notice  49.51
      • 2.  Rule: When Reviewing Court May Take Judicial Notice  49.52
      • 3.  Rule: Reviewing Court Has Same Power as Trial Court Concerning Judicial Notice  49.53
      • 4.  Rule: When Parties Have Right to Reasonable Opportunity to Present Evidence  49.54
      • 5.  Rule: If Relying on Information Not Received in Open Court, Court Must Provide Opportunity to Dispute It  49.55
    • B.  Judicial Comment: Reviewing Court’s Power to Take Judicial Notice  49.56
    • C.  Illustration of Rules: Reviewing Court Need Not Take Judicial Notice of Matter Not Noticed by Trial Court  49.57

About the Authors

Christopher R. Aitken, Esq. is a partner in the Santa Ana firm of Aitken Aitken Cohn. Mr. Aitken represents plaintiffs in major civil jury trial litigation involving personal injury, insurance bad faith, wrongful death, and general business litigation. He has been a frequent continuing education speaker at Orange County Bar Association and Hispanic Bar Association seminars, and is an active member of the California Trial Lawyers Association and the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association. He earned his law degree from the University of Southern California School of Law.

Wylie A. Aitken, Esq. is a founding partner in the Santa Ana firm of Aitken Aitken Cohn. Mr. Aitken is a plaintiff’s trial attorney and former President of the California Trial Lawyers Association (now the Consumer Attorneys of California). He was the Orange County Trial Lawyer of the Year in 1996, was named as a “2004 Southern California Super Lawyer,” and has been featured in Best Lawyers in America. He is a graduate of Marquette University Law School.

Stephen G. Blitch, Esq. serves as a neutral mediator with ADR Services, Inc., San Francisco. He formerly was a partner in the Oakland office of Reed Smith, LLP, specializing in civil trial practice, with an emphasis on business litigation, including business torts, products liability, class actions, construction, real estate, financial services, and environmental litigation. He frequently lectures on trial evidence and trial practice and has taught at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. He is listed in Best Lawyers in America and is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Mr. Blitch is a contributing author of California Trial Objections (Cal CEB Annual). He is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

The late Barbara A. Caulfield, Esq. most recently was a partner at Kaye Scholer, LLP. She formerly was the managing partner of the Silicon Valley office of Dewey & LeBoeuf, and co-chair of its intellectual property litigation group. Ms. Caulfield had extensive experience in complex intellectual property litigation for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. She also had formerly been executive vice president and general counsel of Affymetrix, Inc., a Santa Clara biotechnology company. Before that, she was a partner at a major international law firm, and was a former United States District Judge. Ms. Caulfield had taught trial advocacy and related topics at Stanford and Harvard Law Schools. She was a graduate of Northwestern University School of Law.

John W. Downing, Esq. maintains a solo law practice that centers on intellectual property litigation and technical cases. He has particular expertise in technology related to semiconductors and computer software, as well as matters involving biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. He has represented clients in state and federal court, as well as before the International Trade Commission. He earned his law degree from the University of Arizona College of Law.

The late Hon. Barrett J. Foerster was a judge of the Imperial County Superior Court. He began his judicial service in November 2003, after serving as a Probate Referee and Inheritance Tax Referee. In 2004, he was recognized for outstanding service as a Family Law Specialist and Superior Court Judge by the State Bar. In addition to his work on this publication, Judge Foerster was a contributing author to California Child and Spousal Support: Establishing, Modifying, and Enforcing (Cal CEB) and Family Law Financial Discovery (Cal CEB). Judge Foerster earned a J.D. degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, and an LL.M. degree in labor and employment law from the University of San Diego School of Law. Judge Foerster died in 2010.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie is a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Before becoming a judicial officer, she was a litigation shareholder of Buchalter Nemer, PC, in Los Angeles, specializing in complex civil litigation and serving as chair of the firm’s insurance group. She formerly was a member of the California State Bar’s Board of Governors, and was elected President of the State Bar for 2008–2009. She is a contributing author of Effective Introduction of Evidence in California (2d ed Cal CEB). Judge Fujie earned her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

Hon. Arthur Gilbert has been the Presiding Justice of the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six since November 1999, and was elevated to the Court of Appeal in 1982. He served as a Judge in Los Angeles County from 1975–1982. Before becoming a judge, he was in private practice for 10 years, and also served as a Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney. He has been involved in judicial education, written and lectured, and has served in many capacities with professional organizations. He has twice been named “Appellate Justice of the Year,” and received the Bernard S. Jefferson Award from the California Judges Association in 1987. Justice Gilbert is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

Hon. Thomas E. Hollenhorst has been an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, since 1988. He previously served as a Judge in Riverside County, and also worked for the county as an acting, assistant, and deputy district attorney. He is the former chair of the Center for Judicial Education and Research’s Governing Committee, and also has served as Chair of Judicial Education for the Appellate Judge Conference of the American Bar Association. He is a past recipient of the Jefferson Award from the California Judges Association. He received his J.D. degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and an LL.M. degree from the University of Virginia School of Law.

Hon. Ken M. Kawaichi (Judge, Ret.) is a private neutral with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services. He served for some 28 years as a Judge in Alameda County before becoming a neutral. He has been a frequent speaker on evidence for the California Judges Association and the Center for Judicial Education and Research, and early in his career was an Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Judge Kawaichi received the 2003 Benjamin Aranda III Access to Justice Award, and has chaired or otherwise been an outstanding member of numerous professional associations. He is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

Hon. William F. McDonald (Judge, Ret.) is a private neutral with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, with particular expertise in complex commercial cases. Before becoming a neutral, he was the supervising judge of the Orange County Superior Court’s Complex Civil Litigation Panel, having been appointed to the bench in 1981. While in practice, Judge McDonald had specialized in intellectual property law as a registered patent attorney and in business litigation for some 15 years. He is a certified member of the World Intellectual Property Law Organization panel of Arbitrators and Mediators, and has been the recipient of numerous awards as Judge of the Year from professional associations. Judge McDonald is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center.

Peter E. Root, Esq. is a partner in the Silicon Valley office of Dewey & LeBoeuf, specializing in complex business and commercial litigation with an emphasis on intellectual property and technology matters, securities and corporate governance litigation, and claims involving mergers and acquisitions. He previously was an associate general counsel at Affymetrix, Inc., a biotech company, and earlier was a partner at a major international law firm. Mr. Root earlier served as a Special Assistant District Attorney for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and as a judicial clerk for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

Hon. Laurie D. Zelon is an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7. She became an Associate Justice in 2003. Justice Zelon was appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2000. Before her elevation to the bench, Justice Zelon was in private practice for some 23 years handling litigation involving scientific and technical issues, fiduciary obligations, and other complex commercial disputes. She is a past President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, a former Chair of the California Commission on Access to Justice, and has received numerous awards for pro bono service. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

About the 2018 Update Authors

Hon. Arthur Gilbert. See the About the Authors section for full biographical information.

Hon. Brenda F. Harbin-Forte is a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court. She was first appointed to the Municipal Court bench in 1992 and was elevated to the Superior Court in 1998. Before becoming a bench officer, Judge Harbin-Forte was a private attorney with Harris, Alexander & Burris, where she handled civil and criminal cases, and later was a partner with Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, specializing in complex civil litigation matters. She has received numerous awards for judicial excellence and has been at the forefront of efforts to improve diversity in the judiciary. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

Hon. Martin J. Jenkins is an associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three. Before being elevated to the court of appeal in 2008, Justice Jenkins served as a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, as well as having previously served as a judge of the Alameda County Superior Court. Before becoming a judicial officer, Justice Jenkins served as a trial attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office and later with the United States Department of Justice, as well as working in the private sector as a civil litigator. He received his undergraduate degree from Santa Clara University and his law degree from the University of San Francisco.

Hon. Ken M. Kawaichi (Judge, Ret.). See the About the Authors section for full biographical information.

Hon. Laurie D. Zelon. See the About the Authors section for full biographical information.

Selected Developments

February 2018 Update

The current update includes changes that reflect recent developments in case law, legislation, court rules, and jury instructions. Summarized below are some of the more important developments included in this update since publication of the 2017 update.

Hearsay and Nonhearsay Evidence

  • Hearsay’s lack of trustworthiness comes from the fact that veracity and accuracy cannot be tested through (a) the presence of the declarant under oath, where the current trier of fact can observe the declarant’s demeanor, or (b) cross-examination of the declarant by the adverse party. See People v Williams (2017) 7 CA5th 644, 678 (detective’s testimony that victim identified defendant’s voice on recording was hearsay and only unequivocal identification of defendant, requiring reversal of conviction), in §1.6.

Hearsay Exceptions: General Principles

  • Recent cases construing the meaning of “testimonial” hearsay are People v Lara (2017) 9 CA5th 296, 337 (expert testimony that included details from police reports of completed crimes that identified defendants as gang members was testimonial hearsay), and People v Ochoa (2017) 7 CA5th 575, 584 (when defendant failed to object to expert’s testimony at trial, record was undeveloped and appellate court could not determine whether expert related testimonial hearsay). See §2.19.

  • Recent cases finding that a statement is primarily nontestimonial are People v Mooring (2017) 15 CA5th 928, 942 (website containing generic data about pharmaceutical pills was nontestimonial since “primary purpose of collecting and compiling this content ... was not to gather or preserve evidence for a criminal prosecution”), and People v Smith (2017) 12 CA5th 766, 787 (statements made to acquaintances, not to police officers and not during interrogation, were nontestimonial). See §2.20.

Admissions and Confessions

  • In People v Winbush (2017) 2 C5th 402, 453, the trial court reasonably resolved conflicting evidence to conclude there was no coercion through express or implied promises of leniency and that the interrogation was not unduly protracted. See §3.8.

  • On the application of the Aranda/Bruton rule to nontestimonial statements, see People v Washington (2017) 15 CA5th 19, 28 (Crawford’s narrowing reach of confrontation clause had effect of narrowing reach of Aranda/Bruton doctrine), in §3.42.

  • The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting co-conspirator’s statement before there was any evidence of a conspiracy. See People v Vega-Robles (2017) 9 CA5th 382, 433, in §3.44.

Official Records and Writings

  • In U.S. v Fryberg (9th Cir 2017) 854 F3d 1126, 1132, the court held that the law enforcement exception did not apply to a return of service of a notice of hearing executed by a tribal police officer. The return of service was admissible as a public record under Fed R Evid 803(8)(A)(ii) because it recorded the completion of a largely ministerial task of serving the defendant with notice of a hearing. Because the primary purpose of the return was to inform the tribal court that the defendant had been served and it was not prepared for use in a criminal prosecution, there was no confrontation clause violation. 854 F3d at 1136. See §5.7.

Declarations Against Interest

  • Two recent cases discussing the threshold requirements of trustworthiness are People v Smith (2017) 12 CA5th 766, 793 (statements deemed trustworthy because they were informal and made in presence of friends “in setting in which there was no apparent reason to dissemble or exaggerate”), and People v Smith (2017) 10 CA5th 297, 304 (statement by defendant’s girlfriend 9 months after accident that she was driving car, contradicting earlier statement at scene, excluded as untrustworthy). See §6.9.

Past Recollection Recorded

  • Under Evid C §1237(a)(1), the writing must have been made at the time the fact recorded occurred, or at a subsequent time while the fact recorded was still fresh in the witness’s memory. See In re Bell (2017) 2 C5th 1300, 1308 (“lapse of 16 years that occurred in this case [between 1993 event and 2009 declaration purporting to record event] makes showing the witness’s memory was fresh extremely difficult”), in §11.3.

Statements of State of Mind, Emotion, or Physical Sensation

  • Evidence Code §1252 requires that a hearsay statement that otherwise qualifies for the state-of-mind exception be excluded if it was made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness. See People v Brooks (2017) 3 C5th 1, 40 (record did not contradict trial court’s finding that murder victim’s statements—that she feared defendant—were trustworthy), in §14.8.

Miscellaneous Hearsay Exceptions

  • A subscription-based, login-controlled Internet website used to identify pills and whose information was derived from the federal Food and Drug Administration and prescription pill manufacturers came within the published compilation exception. See People v Mooring (2017) 15 CA5th 928, 939, in §18.14.

Court’s Discretion to Exclude Relevant Evidence Under Evid C §§352–352.1

  • For recent cases involving the admission of crime scene photographs, see People v Winbush (2017) 2 C5th 402, 458 (crime scene photos depicted location of body in room and blood-soaked clothing, and corroborated testimony of how victim was found; partial nudity was not potentially misleading and autopsy photos were not impermissibly cumulative), and People v Brooks (2017) 3 C5th 1, 54 (autopsy and crime scene photos relevant to issues including whether fire was started with accelerant and if victim was alive when fire started and to support prosecution’s theories of premeditation and torture), in §22.15.

Determination of Preliminary Facts: General Principles

  • Evidence Code §310 provides that all questions of law, including the admissibility of evidence, are to be decided by the court in accordance with Evid C §§400–406. See Shaw v Superior Court (2017) 2 C5th 983, 993 (noting that even in cases in which right to jury trial exists, jury determines only issues of fact, and court determines issues of law under Evid C §310), in §24.4.

Opinion Testimony From Expert and Lay Witnesses

  • The court in David v Hernandez (2017) 13 CA5th 692, 699, held that the trial court properly excluded a physician’s testimony that plaintiff had marijuana in his system at time of the traffic accident when the testimony was based on a preliminary test that showed only the presence of THC in the plaintiff’s urine but not when the plaintiff last used marijuana or whether the amount was sufficient to impair his ability to drive. See §30.42.

  • The court in Sanchez v Kern Emergency Med. Transp. (2017) 8 CA5th 146, 156, held that a neurosurgeon’s declaration failed to demonstrate that his opinions were based on matters that experts reasonably rely on in forming such opinions and failed to include a reasoned explanation connecting the factual predicates to the ultimate conclusion. See §30.42.

  • Sanchez applies to cases involving commitments of mentally disordered offenders. See People v Lin (2017) 15 CA5th 984, 990, in §30.45.

Parol Evidence Rule

  • The court in Iqbal v Ziadeh (2017) 10 CA5th 1, 12, held that a declaration by an attorney who represented former defendants stating he intended release to include current defendant was not admissible as extrinsic evidence because counsel’s undisclosed, subjective intent was irrelevant to objectively interpreting release’s language. See §34.19.

Evidence of Character, Habit, and Custom

  • The court in People v Williams (2017) 7 CA5th 644, 677, held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged robberies involving elements typical of a large number of robberies and failed to show any link between defendant and uncharged crimes, although the admission of that evidence was not prejudicial. See §35.24.

  • The court in People v Nicolas (2017) 8 CA5th 1165, 1179, held that it was reversible error to give CALCRIM 375 regarding the defendant’s use of a cell phone before the fatal collision when text messages and phone calls were an indivisible part of the offense charged and the instruction effectively lowered prosecution’s burden of proof. See §35.36.

  • Evidence that the defendant and a woman engaged in sexual relations one or two times was insufficient to support the conclusion that his shooting of the woman was the result of domestic violence and was thus admissible under Evid C §1109. See People v Shorts (2017) 9 CA5th 350, 360, in §35.56.

Privileges: General Provisions

  • Attorney-client privilege was inapplicable to communications with a public relations consultant because the communication was not reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the attorney was consulted. See Behunin v Superior Court (2017) 9 CA5th 833, 849, in §37.4.

Physician-Patient Privilege

  • The physician-patient privilege does not bar the disclosure of records in connection with a disciplinary investigation under the Medical Practice Act (Bus & P C §§2000–2525.5). See Cross v Superior Court (2017) 11 CA5th 305, 320, in §39.29A.

Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege

  • The California Supreme Court has granted review in Mathews v Harris (review granted May 10, 2017, S240156; opinion at 7 CA5th 334 to remain published and citable until further order) to determine whether the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act violates a patient’s rights under the California Constitution by compelling disclosure of communications demonstrating “sexual exploitation,” which includes, among other things, downloading, streaming, and accessing through any electronic or digital media a depiction of a child engaged in an act of obscene sexual conduct. See §40.36.

  • The psychotherapist-patient privilege does not bar the disclosure of records in connection with a disciplinary investigation under the Medical Practice Act (Bus & P C §§2000–2525.5). See Cross v Superior Court (2017) 11 CA5th 305, 320, in §40.37A.

Lawyer-Client Privilege

  • No privilege attached when communications with a public relations consultant were not reasonably necessary to assist the attorney in advising the client or litigating the case. See Behunin v Superior Court (2017) 9 CA5th 833, 849, in §42.22.

  • For a recent case discussing when the receipt of inadvertently disclosed privileged documents triggers a duty to return the documents, see McDermott Will & Emery LLP v Superior Court (2017) 10 CA5th 1083, in §42.27B.

Judicial Notice

  • Under Evid C §451(a), a court must take judicial notice of the provisions of a city or county charter adopted by the vote of electors under Cal Const art XI, §3, §4, or §5. See Morgado v City & County of San Francisco (2017) 13 CA5th 1, 13 n8 (judicial notice of provisions of Los Angeles City Charter), in §49.15.

  • Reports and findings of legislative and administrative committees and commissions are subject to discretionary judicial notice under Evid C §452(c). See Kao v Joy Holiday (2017) 12 CA5th 947, 959 n4 (judicial notice of Department of Labor Standards Enforcement) opinion letters), in §49.25.

  • Under Evid C §459(a)(1), a reviewing court may take judicial notice of any matter specified in Evid C §452. See San Diego County Water Auth. v Metropolitan Water Dist. (2017) 12 CA5th 1124, 1153 n19 (granting request to take judicial notice documents filed in connection with request to depublish court of appeal opinion), in §49.52.

Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Evidence
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Evidence
PRODUCT GROUP Publication