California's rule on evidence law turns on a feature the national template does not capture: California evidence practice is organized under the California Evidence Code. Relevance starts at Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350, 352; hearsay starts at Cal. Evid. Code § 1200. The controlling authority is California Evidence Code. Authenticity is a separate fight under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1400–1401. Depositions at trial: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.620–2025.630 govern deposition notice and conduct; § 2025.620 et seq. and Evid. Code §§ 1290–1292 address former testimony and deposition use when witnesses are unavailable. Criminal cases follow Penal Code discovery statutes and rarely use trial depositions, but preliminary-hearing testimony may be offered under Evid. Code § 1290 when the witness is unavailable.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
Worked example under California law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for California. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
A lawyer in California wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350, 352.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Cal. Evid. Code § 1220 before the hearsay definition in Cal. Evid. Code § 1200.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Cal. Evid. Code § 1271 and the treatment purpose in Cal. Evid. Code § 1253.
- For the deathbed statement, meet Cal. Evid. Code § 1242, then authenticate every exhibit under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1400–1401.
California keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the California Evidence Code. Winning one does not win the others.
General standards of admissibility
California starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350, 352, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Prop. 8 (1982) affects criminal evidence admissibility; civil practitioners must still comply with the Evidence Code. California labels many FRE exceptions as enumerated hearsay exceptions in Division 10 rather than rule subdivisions.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in California is governed by Cal. Evid. Code § 1101. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
California character-evidence opinions
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN JOSE VILLATORO, Defendant and Appellant
…. We granted defendant’s petition for review. Discussion A. Character Evidence and Section 1108 Character evidence, sometimes described as evidence of a propensity or disposition to engage in a type of conduct, is generally inadmissible to prove a person’s conduct on a specified occasion. (§ 1101, subd. (a) (section 1101(a)); Cal. Law Revision Com. com., reprinted at 29B pt. 3B…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN JOSE VILLATORO, Defendant and Appellant are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "We granted defendant’s petition for review. Discussion A." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK ANTHONY HOOVER, Defendant and Appellant
…hich sets forth the general principles governing the use of character evidence. {People v. Linkenauger (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1603, 1612-1614 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 868]; People v. McCray (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 159, 171-173 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 872].) The evidence of defendant’s previous attacks on Seals was therefore admissible to show that he intended to inflict great bodily injury upon he…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK ANTHONY HOOVER, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on California character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "People v. Linkenauger (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1603, 1612-1614 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 868]; People v. McCray (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 159, 171-173 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 872]." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFONSO MALDONADO SOTO, Defendant and Appellant
…uant to section 1108. A. Section 1108. The admissibility of character evidence in California is generally determined pursuant to section 1101. Section 1101, subdivision (a) provides: *983 “Except as provided in this section and in Sections 1102, 1103, 1108, and 1109, evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFONSO MALDONADO SOTO, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on California character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "A. Section 1108. The admissibility of character evidence in California is generally determined pursuant to section 1101." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In Re Cheryl H.
In Re Cheryl H., 153 Cal. App. 3d 1098 (1984)
…r. 615]; Note, Impeaching And Rehabilitating A Witness With Character Evidence: Reputation, Opinion, Specific Acts and Prior Convictions (1976) 9 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 319.) However, this does not mean an expert's opinion a given declarant is believable creates a new hearsay exception by providing an independent ground for initially admitting that declarant's out-of-court statement…
California opinions such as In Re Cheryl H. are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Note, Impeaching And Rehabilitating A Witness With Character Evidence: Reputation, Opinion, Specific Acts and Prior Convictions (1976) 9 U.C. Davis L.Rev. 319." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey Scott YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant.
…itting the prosecution to make improper use of inflammatory character evidence for purposes unrelated to any legitimate issue in the proceeding. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the error was prejudicial. We therefore reverse the judgment as to the sentence of death and remand the matter for a new penalty determination. I. BACKGROUND A. Guilt Phase On July 18,…
Practitioners open The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey Scott YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant. when California character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the error was prejudicial. We therefore reverse the judgment as to the sentence of death and remand the matter for a new penalty determination. I. BACKGROUND A." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
People v. Dworak
People v. Dworak, 281 Cal. Rptr. 3d 176 (2021)
…(People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1243.) 2. Victim Character Evidence Rachel Daniels had been one of Hamilton’s closest friends. According to the prosecutor’s motion in limine, Daniels was “a regular drug-user, and frequently had relationships with men to exchange for dope and/or money.” Through Daniels, Hamilton met John Figueroa. A few months before Hamilton’s death,…
On character evidence, People v. Dworak speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1243.) 2. Victim Character Evidence Rachel Daniels had been one of Hamilton’s closest friends." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in California are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Cal. Evid. Code § 1200, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
California hearsay opinions
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCOS ARTURO SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant
…ptions not relevant here, that the admission of testimonial hearsay against a criminal defendant violates the Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Here we consider the degree to which the Crawford rule limits an expert witness from relating case-specific hearsay content in explaining the basis for his opinion. In addition, we clarify the proper applica…
On hearsay, The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCOS ARTURO SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Here we consider the degree to which the Crawford rule limits an expert witness from relating case-specific hearsay content in explaining the basis for his opinion." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUSSELL D. WOODELL, Defendant and Appellant
…of the appellate opinion on which the prosecution relies is hearsay when used to show defendant's conduct, and its use is therefore "precluded by the rules of evidence" (id. at p. 1201). B. Record of Conviction We have never defined exactly what comprises the record of conviction to which the trier of fact may look to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a serious…
Practitioners open The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUSSELL D. WOODELL, Defendant and Appellant when California hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "of the appellate opinion on which the prosecution relies is hearsay when used to show defendant's conduct, and its use is therefore 'precluded by the rules of evidence' (id. at p. 1201). B. Record of Conviction We have never defined exactly what comprises the record of conviction" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant, 13 Cal. 4th 217 (1996)
…PINION WERDEGAR, J. This case concerns the admissibility of hearsay evidence to prove that a criminal defendant's prior conviction was for a "serious felony" within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (a), and 1192.7, subdivision (c). Over defendant's hearsay objection, the prosecution introduced two pieces of evidence from the record of defendant's prior assaul…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "PINION WERDEGAR, J. This case concerns the admissibility of hearsay evidence to prove that a criminal defendant's prior conviction was for a 'serious felony' within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (a), and 1192.7, subdivision (c)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMIE DALE OTTO, Defendant and Appellant
…VP) commitment proceeding, allows the admission of multiple hearsay that does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule, and if so, whether reliance on this evidence violates a defendant’s right to due process. The Court of Appeal concluded such hearsay was admissible and reliance on the evidence did not contravene defendant’s due process rights. We affirm. I. Factual a…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JIMMIE DALE OTTO, Defendant and Appellant are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "VP) commitment proceeding, allows the admission of multiple hearsay that does not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule, and if so, whether reliance on this evidence violates a defendant’s right to due process." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO VALDEZ, Defendant and Appellant
…neously permitted a gang expert to relate *499 inadmissible hearsay to support his opinion on various subjects. In addition, he claims there is insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement, the trial court erroneously permitted the prosecution to present witnesses solely to have them refuse to testify in front of the jury, and the court gave a defective instruction def…
On hearsay, The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANCISCO VALDEZ, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "neously permitted a gang expert to relate *499 inadmissible hearsay to support his opinion on various subjects. In addition, he claims there is insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancement, the trial court erroneously permitted the prosecution to present witnesses solely" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
MAHSHID JAZAYERI Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DENNIS MAO Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
…cumentary evidence on grounds of lack of authentication and hearsay. Concluding that appellants had failed to meet their burden of proof, the court then entered judgment for respondents. We conclude that the blanket exclusion was error, and that much of the evidence offered was adequately authenticated and was not subject to any legitimate hearsay objection. As set forth in gre…
On hearsay, MAHSHID JAZAYERI Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DENNIS MAO Et Al., Defendants and Respondents speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Concluding that appellants had failed to meet their burden of proof, the court then entered judgment for respondents." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. California treats them under Cal. Evid. Code § 1220. Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
California party-admission opinions
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant, 13 Cal. 4th 217 (1996)
…e court further held, was not within any exception, but its admission could not have prejudiced defendant because its contents were consistent with those of the preliminary hearing transcript. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. DISCUSSION Section 667, subdivision (a), provides for a five-year sentence enhancement for each prior serious f…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on California party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
RICHARD LAKE, and v. SALLY R. REED, as Director, etc., and
RICHARD LAKE, and v. SALLY R. REED, as Director, etc., and, 16 Cal. 4th 448 (1997)
…common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of the evidence over objection in civil actions. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.” The DMV, in attempting to prove by a prepondera…
California opinions such as RICHARD LAKE, and v. SALLY R. REED, as Director, etc., and are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
MAHSHID JAZAYERI Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DENNIS MAO Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
…th in greater detail below, certain documents qualified for admission as official records under Evidence Code section 1280, others as business records under Evidence Code section 1271, *306 and still others as admissions under Evidence Code section 1220 or adoptive admissions under Evidence Code section 1221. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Claims Presented Appellants Ma…
California opinions such as MAHSHID JAZAYERI Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DENNIS MAO Et Al., Defendants and Respondents are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Evidence Code section 1280, others as business records under Evidence Code section 1271, *306 and still others as admissions under Evidence Code section 1220 or adoptive admissions under Evidence Code section 1221. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD L. MAKI, Defendant and Appellant
…rticularly the invoice, were properly admitted as "adoptive admissions." Section 1221 states that "Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth." Here, the court after…
On party admissions, The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD L. MAKI, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The PEOPLE, and v. Scott D. FLINT, and
The PEOPLE, and v. Scott D. FLINT, and, 231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 910 (2018)
…h did not otherwise fit a qualifying hearsay exception, and admission of the evidence deprived him of a fair trial resulting in a miscarriage of justice. ( Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)11 Although Flint's attorney did not object to the hearsay, Flint contends the omission should be excused because any objection would have been futile. Alternatively, Flint contends, his attorney'…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, and v. Scott D. FLINT, and are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)11 Although Flint's attorney did not object to the hearsay, Flint contends the omission should be excused because any objection would have been futile." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
THE PEOPLE, and v. VERA NELSON, and
THE PEOPLE, and v. VERA NELSON, and, 209 Cal. App. 4th 698 (2012)
…staff members were admissible under section 1220, the party admission exception. Nelson also filed a motion in limine. The motion acknowledged the hearsay in the Interdisciplinary Notes was “clearly relevant” to the experts’ opinions on continued risk of harm. Nelson sought a limiting instruction that the hearsay was not admissible to prove the truth of stated matters. The cour…
California opinions such as THE PEOPLE, and v. VERA NELSON, and are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Nelson also filed a motion in limine. The motion acknowledged the hearsay in the Interdisciplinary Notes was “clearly relevant” to the experts’ opinions on continued risk of harm." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOEY ALFONSO MORGAN, Defendant and Appellant
…mply with Evidence Code sections 770 and 1235; (3) that the admission into evidence of the tape recording of the excused witness’ out-of-court statements constituted a violation of defendant’s constitutional right of witness confrontation; and (4) that prejudicial portions of the excused witness’ out-of-court statements were admitted although such portions were not inconsistent…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOEY ALFONSO MORGAN, Defendant and Appellant are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "mply with Evidence Code sections 770 and 1235; (3) that the admission into evidence of the tape recording of the excused witness’ out-of-court statements constituted a violation of defendant’s constitutional right of witness confrontation; and (4) that prejudicial portions of the" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Business records
The business-records exception under Cal. Evid. Code § 1271 is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
California business-records opinions
MAHSHID JAZAYERI Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DENNIS MAO Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
…fficial records under Evidence Code section 1280, others as business records under Evidence Code section 1271, *306 and still others as admissions under Evidence Code section 1220 or adoptive admissions under Evidence Code section 1221. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Claims Presented Appellants Mahshid Jazayeri and her husband David Rashidian, doing business as R&A Ranc…
On business records, MAHSHID JAZAYERI Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DENNIS MAO Et Al., Defendants and Respondents speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Evidence Code section 1280, others as business records under Evidence Code section 1271, *306 and still others as admissions under Evidence Code section 1220 or adoptive admissions under Evidence Code section 1221. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In Re TROY D., a Minor. SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. KELLY D
…foundation for admission of the medical records within the business records exception to the hearsay rule. This contention also is unmeritorious. (14) The trial court holds wide discretion to determine whether evidence is admissible, and such a determination will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing that the court has abused its discretion. (County of Sonoma v. Gra…
On business records, In Re TROY D., a Minor. SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent, v. KELLY D speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "This contention also is unmeritorious. (14) The trial court holds wide discretion to determine whether evidence is admissible, and such a determination will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing that the court has abused its discretion. (County of Sonoma v." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD L. MAKI, Defendant and Appellant
…gainst hearsay. The people made no attempt to admit them as business records. Section 1271 provides that a writing is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule, and may be used to prove an act, condition or event if "(a) The writing was made in the regular course of a business; [¶] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event; [¶] (c) The custodi…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD L. MAKI, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on California business records because the court put the point in its own words: "The people made no attempt to admit them as business records." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
ROBERT HERRERA, and v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, and
ROBERT HERRERA, and v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, and, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 (2011)
…endants contended that the recorded documents were actually business records and admissible under the business record exception. We note that Brignac did not provide any information in her declaration establishing that the sources of the information and the manner and time of preparation were such as to indicate trustworthiness. (Evid. Code, § 1271, subd. (d).)5 Information con…
California opinions such as ROBERT HERRERA, and v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, and are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "We note that Brignac did not provide any information in her declaration establishing that the sources of the information and the manner and time of preparation were such as to indicate trustworthiness. (Evid. Code, § 1271, subd. (d)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL ZAVALA, Defendant and Appellant
…in the regular course of business does not fall within the business records exception under Evidence Code section 1271 to the general rule prohibiting hearsay evidence. Here, we hold a printed spreadsheet of call data produced for purposes of trial does fall within *244 the business records exception where the underlying data is kept and maintained by a reliable computer progr…
Practitioners open The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL ZAVALA, Defendant and Appellant when California business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Evidence Code section 1271 to the general rule prohibiting hearsay evidence." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
People v. Matthews
People v. Matthews, 229 Cal. App. 3d 930 (1991)
…admitted over hearsay and lack of foundation objections as business records, and are in dispute in this appeal.[2] *935 To satisfy the foundational requirements for admission of exhibits 16 and 17, the state and local "rap sheets," respectively, as business records (Evid. Code, § 1271), the prosecution adduced testimony of John White, a fingerprint technician and custodian of…
People v. Matthews is worth reading on California business records because the court put the point in its own words: "To satisfy the foundational requirements for admission of exhibits 16 and 17, the state and local 'rap sheets,' respectively, as business records (Evid." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
EDWARD L. TAGGART Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SUPER SEER CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent
…argued that the Southwest reports were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (§1271). In connection with the hearing on the motions in limine, the trial court opened the sealed envelope. It reviewed the Southwest reports and the custodian’s declaration. Super Seer then objected that the custodian’s declaration failed to demonstrate that the reports…
California opinions such as EDWARD L. TAGGART Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SUPER SEER CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Southwest reports were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (§1271). In connection with the hearing on the motions in limine, the trial court opened the sealed envelope. It reviewed the Southwest reports and the custodian’s declaration." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in California trial practice.
Excited utterance — Cal. Evid. Code § 1240. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Cal. Evid. Code § 1241. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Cal. Evid. Code § 1250. Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1290–1292, California opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1290–1292 is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Cal. Evid. Code § 1242 remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
California dying-declaration opinions
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MANUEL AMAYA, Appellant
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MANUEL AMAYA, Appellant, 134 Cal. 531 (1901)
…ied from the effects'of one of the gunshot wounds, and by a dying declaration accused the above-named appellant and one Joseph Teshara of the crime. Appellant and Teshara were separately accused, by information, of the murder, and after separate trials were both convicted. Appellant was first tried, and convicted of murder in the first degree, upon which he was sentenced to lif…
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MANUEL AMAYA, Appellant is worth reading on California dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "Joseph Teshara of the crime. Appellant and Teshara were separately accused, by information, of the murder, and after separate trials were both convicted." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALEX. J. THOMSON, Appellant
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALEX. J. THOMSON, Appellant, 145 Cal. 717 (1905)
…1903. On February 6, 1903, he made what was claimed to be a dying declaration, and this was admitted in evidence as a dying declaration. It is not claimed that the preliminary evidence as to the circumstances under which the statement was made was not sufficient to warrant the court in admitting the same in evidence, but it is claimed that the trial court erred in giving a cert…
Practitioners open The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALEX. J. THOMSON, Appellant when California dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "On February 6, 1903, he made what was claimed to be a dying declaration, and this was admitted in evidence as a dying declaration." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JUSTIN A. BROWN, Appellant
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JUSTIN A. BROWN, Appellant, 130 Cal. 591 (1900)
…nt of a foundation upon which to base the introduction of a dying declaration. Inasmuch as the dying declaration was not thereafter introduced in evidence, objections to the questions addressed to him need not be considered. For the evidence given was merely preliminary, and in no way prejudiced defendant. The witness Hitchcock testified that he saw deceased a very short time s…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JUSTIN A. BROWN, Appellant are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Inasmuch as the dying declaration was not thereafter introduced in evidence, objections to the questions addressed to him need not be considered. For the evidence given was merely preliminary, and in no way prejudiced defendant." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
THE PEOPLE v. GLENN
THE PEOPLE v. GLENN, 10 Cal. 32 (1858)
…that *36the Court below erred in admitting in evidence the dying declarations of the deceased, Francis Brubaker. The learned counsel maintains this point upon two grounds: first, that dying declarations are inadmissible under our statute, which provides that the defendant is entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him, in the presence of the Court; second, that co…
California opinions such as THE PEOPLE v. GLENN are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Court below erred in admitting in evidence the dying declarations of the deceased, Francis Brubaker." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
THE PEOPLE v. WRIGHT J. FARMER
THE PEOPLE v. WRIGHT J. FARMER, 77 Cal. 1 (1888)
…ied on for a reversal is error in admitting in evidence the dying declaration of the deceased; the contention being that the declaration was not made under a solemn sense of impending dissolution. Two witnesses, W. C. Goldsmith and William Newman, testified as to the condition of the deceased. Goldsmith testified that he knew the deceased, Thomas G. Christie, in his lifetime; t…
Practitioners open THE PEOPLE v. WRIGHT J. FARMER when California dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Two witnesses, W. C. Goldsmith and William Newman, testified as to the condition of the deceased. Goldsmith testified that he knew the deceased, Thomas G." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALBERTO PROFUMO, Appellant
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALBERTO PROFUMO, Appellant, 23 Cal. App. 376 (1913)
…g to the jury the following instruction upon the subject of dying declarations: “Whether the declaration was in fact made under a sense of impending death is a question of fact which most materially affects the question of its credibility, *378 and the determination of the court thereon is not conclusive upon the jury. They have the right, in considering whether they shall acce…
On dying declaration, The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALBERTO PROFUMO, Appellant speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Whether the declaration was in fact made under a sense of impending death is a question of fact which most materially affects the question of its credibility, *378 and the determination of the court thereon is not conclusive upon the jury." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MAURO PARISI, Appellant
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MAURO PARISI, Appellant, 190 Cal. 542 (1923)
…strict attorney as a foundation for the introduction of the dying declaration of the decedent. It is not claimed that these statements or that this *544 evidence was immaterial, but the ground advanced for the charge of misconduct on the part of the district attorney is as follows: “As a matter of fact there was no necessity for a dying declaration, or rather there was proof su…
On dying declaration, The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MAURO PARISI, Appellant speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "strict attorney as a foundation for the introduction of the dying declaration of the decedent. It is not claimed that these statements or that this *544 evidence was immaterial, but the ground advanced for the charge of misconduct on the part of the district attorney is as follow" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
THE PEOPLE v. JOSÉ RAMIREZ
THE PEOPLE v. JOSÉ RAMIREZ, 73 Cal. 403 (1887)
…t his motion for a new trial should be granted is, that the dying declaration of the deceased was improperly admitted in evidence. The condition of the deceased and the character of his wounds were testified to by his attending physician and surgeon, who further testified to having informed the deceased the day before he made his dying declaration that he was going to die, and…
Practitioners open THE PEOPLE v. JOSÉ RAMIREZ when California dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "t his motion for a new trial should be granted is, that the dying declaration of the deceased was improperly admitted in evidence. The condition of the deceased and the character of his wounds were testified to by his attending physician and surgeon, who further testified to havi" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Cal. Evid. Code § 1253 cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
California medical-statement opinions
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES R. BURNICK, Defendant and Appellant — Burke, J., dissenting
…e jury is in reality asked to confirm what is essentially a medical diagnosis. The People’s burden of persuasion ought to be no greater than the degree of assurance with which reputable physicians express themselves. [Citation.]” As I have pointed out, the trier of fact in MDSO proceedings is also charged with predicting future behavior and confirming what is essentially a medi…
Practitioners open The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES R. BURNICK, Defendant and Appellant — Burke, J., dissenting when California medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The People’s burden of persuasion ought to be no greater than the degree of assurance with which reputable physicians express themselves. [Citation." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In Re Cheryl H.
In Re Cheryl H., 153 Cal. App. 3d 1098 (1984)
…is deduction from the appearance of the injury itself.... A medical diagnosis based on probability as is the case with the `battered child syndrome' diagnosis is admissible; the lack of scientific certainty does not deprive the medical opinion of its evidentiary value." (Id. at p. 507; see also Annot. 98 A.L.R.3d 306 (1980); citations omitted.)[19] Child beating and sexual…
In Re Cheryl H. is worth reading on California medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "A medical diagnosis based on probability as is the case with the `battered child syndrome' diagnosis is admissible; the lack of scientific certainty does not deprive the medical opinion of its evidentiary value.' (Id. at p. 507; see also Annot. 98 A.L.R." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In Re REBECCA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
…nnifer A. and Drake M. opinions both noted the absence of a medical diagnosis of a substance abuse problem, we do not read either opinion to support the proposition that a showing of a medical diagnosis is a required element of proof to find substance abuse under section 300, subdivision (b). In Jennifer A., which arose in the context of termination of reunification services, t…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, In Re REBECCA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Drake M. opinions both noted the absence of a medical diagnosis of a substance abuse problem, we do not read either opinion to support the proposition that a showing of a medical diagnosis is a required element of proof to find substance abuse under section 300, subdivision (b)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
CATHERINE FLORES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PRESBYTERIAN INTERCOMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendant and Respondent
…relevant professional service is medical care: that is, the medical diagnosis and treatment of patients. But this does not mean that section 340.5 applies only to those specific tasks that require advanced medical skills and training. A medical professional or other hospital staff member may commit a negligent act in rendering medical care, thereby causing a patient’s injury, e…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, CATHERINE FLORES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PRESBYTERIAN INTERCOMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendant and Respondent speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "But this does not mean that section 340.5 applies only to those specific tasks that require advanced medical skills and training." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
SHELLY GEE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LUCKY STORES Et Al., Respondents
…hich created a presumption of correctness applicable to the medical diagnosis of the employee’s treating physician, provides: “In cases where an additional comprehensive medical evaluation is obtained under Section 4061 or 4062 [disputes concerning the employee’s level of disability or permanent and stationary status], the findings of the treating physician are presumed to be c…
SHELLY GEE, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, LUCKY STORES Et Al., Respondents is worth reading on California medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "hich created a presumption of correctness applicable to the medical diagnosis of the employee’s treating physician, provides: “In cases where an additional comprehensive medical evaluation is obtained under Section 4061 or 4062 [disputes concerning the employee’s level of disabil" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Claudia A. JOHNSON, and v. OPEN DOOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, and
Claudia A. JOHNSON, and v. OPEN DOOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, and, 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 839 (2017)
…es that hospitals owe to their patients in the rendering of medical diagnosis and treatment, but negligence in performing the duties that hospitals owe to all users-including personnel and visitors-simply by virtue of operating a facility that is open to the public ." ( Flores, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 86, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 449, 369 P.3d 229, italics added.) The Supreme Court reje…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, Claudia A. JOHNSON, and v. OPEN DOOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, and speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Flores, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 86, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 449, 369 P.3d 229, italics added." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
BLAINE MOGIL Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS CORPORATION Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
…cing symptoms that would lead a reasonable person to seek a medical diagnosis.’ ” (American Sun Life Ins. Co. v. Remig, supra, 482 So.2d at p. 436.) Similarly, a Louisiana appellate court construed a provision “ ‘[a] sickness manifests itself if you . . . have symptoms of it’” as meaning “an insured’s symptoms must be such as would cause an ordinarily prudent person to seek med…
California opinions such as BLAINE MOGIL Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS CORPORATION Et Al., Defendants and Respondents are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "American Sun Life Ins. Co. v. Remig, supra, 482 So.2d at p. 436.) Similarly, a Louisiana appellate court construed a provision “ ‘[a] sickness manifests itself if you . . ." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
CITY OF FRESNO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALBERT BERNELL JOHNSON, SR., Respondents
…n one year after he formed the belief, without benefit of a medical diagnosis, that his disability was job related. We hold that substantial evidence supports the board’s determination. The Facts Applicant has completed three and one-half years of college. At the time he first suffered chest pain on December 21, 1980, he had been employed by the City of Fresno (city) for approx…
California opinions such as CITY OF FRESNO, Petitioner, v. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD and ALBERT BERNELL JOHNSON, SR., Respondents are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "We hold that substantial evidence supports the board’s determination. The Facts Applicant has completed three and one-half years of college." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Use of depositions at trial
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.620–2025.630 govern deposition notice and conduct; § 2025.620 et seq. and Evid. Code §§ 1290–1292 address former testimony and deposition use when witnesses are unavailable. Criminal cases follow Penal Code discovery statutes and rarely use trial depositions, but preliminary-hearing testimony may be offered under Evid. Code § 1290 when the witness is unavailable.
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
California deposition / former-testimony opinions
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant, 13 Cal. 4th 217 (1996)
…treatise, has observed, "`The general principle upon which depositions and former testimony should be resorted to is the simple principle of necessity, i.e., the absence of any other means of utilizing the witness' knowledge.'" (People v. Rojas (1975) 15 Cal.3d 540, 549 [125 Cal. Rptr. 357, 542 P.2d 229, 93 A.L.R.3d 1127], quoting 5 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn ed. 1970) §…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES REED, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on California deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "The general principle upon which depositions and former testimony should be resorted to is the simple principle of necessity, i.e., the absence of any other means of utilizing the witness' knowledge.'' (People v. Rojas (1975) 15 Cal.3d 540, 549 [125 Cal. Rptr. 357, 542 P." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD L. MAKI, Defendant and Appellant
…ate,' witnesses may give evidence by document, affidavit or deposition (Gagnon [v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778,] 782, fn. 5 [36 L.Ed.2d at p. 662]; Morrissey [v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471,] 478 [33 L.Ed.2d at pp. 497-498] [the parolee `may bring letters, documents, or individuals who can give relevant information to the hearing officer']; In re Bye [(1974) 12 Cal.3d 96,] 110…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD L. MAKI, Defendant and Appellant are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Gagnon [v. Scarpelli (1973) 411 U.S. 778,] 782, fn. 5 [36 L.Ed.2d at p. 662]; Morrissey [v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471,] 478 [33 L.Ed.2d at pp." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
KAREN GATTON Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent
…osition to the motion, plaintiffs offered excerpts from two depositions. One was from Henry Woodrow, taken in 1986 as part of discovery in Woodrow’s personal injury action against Johns-Manville Corporation and others. Plaintiffs here represented that Woodrow had worked for Bigelow-Liptak from 1963 to 1977, and their excerpt consisted of two pages in which he described work he…
Practitioners open KAREN GATTON Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent when California deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "One was from Henry Woodrow, taken in 1986 as part of discovery in Woodrow’s personal injury action against Johns-Manville Corporation and others." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
JENNIE SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BAGUES & SONS MORTUARIES, Defendant and Respondent
…iff’s counsel also attempted to introduce into evidence the deposition of a Mr. Houghton, an alleged expert witness, on the basis that the witness was unavailable to testify at the time of trial. The court sustained defense counsel’s objection to the use of the deposition at trial. This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether it was error for the trial court to exclude plaintif…
On deposition / former testimony, JENNIE SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BAGUES & SONS MORTUARIES, Defendant and Respondent speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Mr. Houghton, an alleged expert witness, on the basis that the witness was unavailable to testify at the time of trial. The court sustained defense counsel’s objection to the use of the deposition at trial." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND (A Corporation), Appellant
…the court to which the magistrate is required to return the depositions and statement, upon the defendant being held to answer after examination.” Section 1277 is as follows: “What magistrates may admit to bail. When the defendant has been held to answer upon an examination for a public offense, the admission to bail may be by the magistrate by whom he is so held, or by any mag…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND (A Corporation), Appellant are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Section 1277 is as follows: “What magistrates may admit to bail." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
CONSOLIDATED LUMBER COMPANY (A Corporation), Respondent, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND (A
…was not necessary so far as Seaton was concerned. Seaton’s deposition was taken and introduced in evidence. One of the questions and answers was as follows: “Did you at any time ever agree with any one to waive the presentment of this note to Mr. Kiefhaber, on the day it became due, for payment ? Answer. No sir.” It is apparent that this evidence does not conclusively show the…
California opinions such as CONSOLIDATED LUMBER COMPANY (A Corporation), Respondent, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND (A are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Seaton was concerned. Seaton’s deposition was taken and introduced in evidence. One of the questions and answers was as follows: “Did you at any time ever agree with any one to waive the presentment of this note to Mr. Kiefhaber, on the day it became due, for payment ?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE, Etc., Respondent, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND (A Corporation), Appellant
…e defendant is required to appear, the warrant, if any, the depositions, and all undertakings of bail.” (Sec. 883, Pen. Code.) Where the proceedings at the preliminary examination are taken by a reporter, he is given ten *688 days in which to transcribe his notes and file such transcription with the county clerk. (Sec. 869, Pen. Code.) It is clear that the order admitting to an…
On deposition / former testimony, The PEOPLE, Etc., Respondent, v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND (A Corporation), Appellant speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Sec. 883, Pen. Code.) Where the proceedings at the preliminary examination are taken by a reporter, he is given ten *688 days in which to transcribe his notes and file such transcription with the county clerk. (Sec. 869, Pen. Code." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1400–1401, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
California's Evidence Code separates authentication (§§ 1400–1421) from the hearsay and business-records foundations. Electronic records, surveillance video, and social-media posts require a sponsoring witness or expert foundation before § 1271 business-record shortcuts apply.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every California trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for California trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
California authenticity opinions
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARMEN GOLDSMITH, Defendant and Appellant
…ng the officer’s testimony in this case provided sufficient authentication to admit the ATES evidence and that the ATES evidence was not hearsay. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Background A. Statutory authorization of ATES Local governmental agencies are statutorily authorized to equip a traffic intersection with an ATES, if the system meets certain requirements…
California opinions such as The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARMEN GOLDSMITH, Defendant and Appellant are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "ATES evidence and that the ATES evidence was not hearsay. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Background A." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
MAHSHID JAZAYERI Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DENNIS MAO Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
…k of appellants’ documentary evidence on grounds of lack of authentication and hearsay. Concluding that appellants had failed to meet their burden of proof, the court then entered judgment for respondents. We conclude that the blanket exclusion was error, and that much of the evidence offered was adequately authenticated and was not subject to any legitimate hearsay objection.…
Practitioners open MAHSHID JAZAYERI Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DENNIS MAO Et Al., Defendants and Respondents when California authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Concluding that appellants had failed to meet their burden of proof, the court then entered judgment for respondents." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
JAY ESPEJO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
…. Citing Ruiz, he argued that defendants failed to properly authenticate his signature on the DRP. In his accompanying declaration, Espejo admitted he received an e-mail from SCPMG on May 3, 2011, with a hyperlink to the Applicant Homepage. He claimed he had a “specific recollection of electronically signing the Employee Physician Contract” after inputting his username and pass…
On authentication, JAY ESPEJO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP Et Al., Defendants and Appellants speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Citing Ruiz, he argued that defendants failed to properly authenticate his signature on the DRP. In his accompanying declaration, Espejo admitted he received an e-mail from SCPMG on May 3, 2011, with a hyperlink to the Applicant Homepage." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
WELCO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS J. MORA, Defendant
…t erred in admitting certain exhibits because they were not authenticated, in allowing Gimenes’s testimony because she lacked personal knowledge, and without that evidence there is not substantial evidence in support of the judgment. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. 1. Standard of Review We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion…
WELCO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS J. MORA, Defendant is worth reading on California authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "Gimenes’s testimony because she lacked personal knowledge, and without that evidence there is not substantial evidence in support of the judgment. The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. 1." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNY LEE SKILES, Defendant and Appellant
…the Court of Appeal determined that the faxed copy had been authenticated by its content and circumstantial evidence. The court compared the content of the faxed document with the other undisputed original certified copies of court records in the Alabama case and concluded that the faxed indictment page was an authentic representation of the actual charges in the Alabama case.…
On authentication, The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNY LEE SKILES, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Court of Appeal determined that the faxed copy had been authenticated by its content and circumstantial evidence." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
THE PEOPLE, and v. VINCENT JULIAN VALDEZ, JR., and
THE PEOPLE, and v. VINCENT JULIAN VALDEZ, JR., and, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1429 (2011)
…ected to admission of the MySpace evidence based on lack of authentication, hearsay, and that it was more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352,2 and he renews those challenges on appeal. As we explain, they are without merit. 1. Authentication Valdez’s authentication challenge fails because the prosecution met its initial burden to support its claim the My…
Practitioners open THE PEOPLE, and v. VINCENT JULIAN VALDEZ, JR., and when California authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "MySpace evidence based on lack of authentication, hearsay, and that it was more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352,2 and he renews those challenges on appeal. As we explain, they are without merit. 1." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
WILLIAM SHERMAN v. CHARLES R. STORY
WILLIAM SHERMAN v. CHARLES R. STORY, 30 Cal. 253 (1866)
…ing of record in the office of the Secretary of State, duly authenticated by the certificates of the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the Assembly, the signatures of the President of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly, and the approval of the Governor of the State, never did pass either House, and is, therefore, not a valid law. The question involved is one of vast prac…
California opinions such as WILLIAM SHERMAN v. CHARLES R. STORY are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the Assembly, the signatures of the President of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly, and the approval of the Governor of the State, never did pass either House, and is, therefore, not a valid law." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
A. HARPENDING v. H. H. HAIGHT, (Governor of the State of California)
A. HARPENDING v. H. H. HAIGHT, (Governor of the State of California), 39 Cal. 189 (1870)
…t, commanding him, as Governor of the State, to cause to be authenticated as a statute *195a certain, bill now in his possession, known as Senate Bill No. 258, which passed both houses at the late session of the Legislature: The case comes before us upon a voluntary submission made by the parties upon the following agreed statement of facts: Now comes the petitioner and respond…
On authentication, A. HARPENDING v. H. H. HAIGHT, (Governor of the State of California) speaks to the California dispute in this passage: "Governor of the State, to cause to be authenticated as a statute *195a certain, bill now in his possession, known as Senate Bill No." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1400–1401 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent California appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in California?
California applies the California Evidence Code. California uses a comprehensive Evidence Code rather than court rules; concepts align with FRE but section numbers differ (e.g., hearsay in Division 10, relevance in Division 3).
How do California courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 210, 350, 352, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in California?
Party-opponent statements under Cal. Evid. Code § 1220 are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Cal. Evid. Code § 1271, show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in California?
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.620–2025.630 govern deposition notice and conduct; § 2025.620 et seq. and Evid. Code §§ 1290–1292 address former testimony and deposition use when witnesses are unavailable. Criminal cases follow Penal Code discovery statutes and rarely use trial depositions, but preliminary-hearing testimony may be offered under Evid. Code § 1290 when the witness is unavailable.
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. California authenticity practice starts with Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1400–1401.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Cal. Evid. Code § 1242 require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Cal. Evid. Code § 1253 require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.