CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay
......Confrontation
.........Criminal-State Cases
............Out-of-Court Statements
 16 Cards On This Topic:
  • D did not forfeit Crawford claim by failing to raise at 1998 trial where governing law at the time held that admission of hearsay stmt. as adoptive admission did not implicate D’s confrontation right.
  • Admitting prior statements D's fellow inmate made to Os regarding D's trying to solicit a W's murder did not violate Confrontation Clause as inmate testified and was subject to cross.
  • If court erred in admitting co-worker's statement as to V's stated fear of D, error harmless under any standard where testimony as to V's state of mind not particularly inculpatory and evidence of D's guilt was overwhelming.
  • Reversible error not to sustain hearsay objection to PO's testimony as to out-of-court statements about D's alcohol consumption where declarant available and no good cause shown.
  • No abuse of discretion in finding co-D's stmt, that D didn't do it, untrustworthy and excluding it per CA hearsay law; no constit'l error under Chambers as co-D's exculpatory stmts not inherently reliable and properly excluded.
  • Exclusion of single inadmissible hearsay statement did not violate D's right to due process.
  • D's confrontation right violated by admission of recorded statement of witness as to statements nontestifying co-D made to him.
  • Admitting out-of-court statements nontestifying co-D made to friend did not violate confrontation clause where they met residual trustworthiness test.
  • No duty to keep V alive for prelim; dying declaration not violation of confrontation.
  • State-of-mind statement not denial of confrontation.
  • Prior inconsistent statements not denial of confrontation.
  • Spontaneous statements not denial of confrontation.
  • Co-D's out-of-court statement inculpating other D is admissible under confrontation clause if there are particularized guarantees of trustworthiness or indicia of reliability.
  • Adoptive admissions not denial of confrontation.
  • Business record does not deny confrontation.
  • Co-conspirator's extrajudicial implicating statement no denial of confrontation.


    •