CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay Exceptions re Statements
......Prior Inconsistent Statements
.........In General
 19 Cards On This Topic:
  • Prior inconsistent statements.
  • Statement of witness not made inadmissible by hearsay rule if statement inconsistent with witness' testimony at hearing and offered in compliance with Evid. Code §770.
  • Prior inconsistent statements generally inadmissible unless witness has opportunity to explain.
  • Manner of proving inconsistent statements made at trial or prelim.
  • Prior inconsistent statements not hearsay under Federal Rules Evid.; requirements for admission.
  • D's prior inconsistent stmts, elicited from defense E on cross-exam, were properly admitted to impeach D.
  • Prosecution properly called percipient Ws to provide relevant testimony, not for purpose of impeaching them with prior inconsistent statements.
  • No abuse of discretion in allowing "difficult and defiant" W to be impeached with prior inconsistent statements under EC 1235 upon his refusal to answer questions.
  • CALJIC 2.13 in no way directs jury to accept prior statements as the truth; it merely covers the hearsay exceptions provided in EC 1235 and EC 1236, in a neutral fashion.
  • Eyewitness' out-of-court statements, admitted as prior consistent statements, might also have been admissible as prior I.D. per EC 1238, or for their truth as prior recorded recollections per EC 1235 and EC 770.
  • Detective's and later rape victim's evidence of D's stmts suggesting he previously committed similar crimes properly admitted under exceptions to hearsay rule.
  • Accomplice’s prior inconsistent statement implicating D in a previous rape was properly admitted under EC 770 and 1235.
  • Officer's testimony on cross as to V's hospital statements, inconsistent with prelim. testimony, properly admitted where D raised issue and it was not beyond scope of direct.
  • DA, over objection, could properly read witness' former testimony from her own trial to jury where trial court found witness deliberately evasive rather than suffering loss of memory.
  • W's prior statements, that D told him to intimidate murder eyewitness, properly admitted as prior inconsistent statements after W denied making them.
  • Minor who voluntarily testifies falsely at trial may be impeached by statements made to probation officer in preparation for fitness hearing.
  • O's testimony re D's mother's pretrial interview stmts should not have been admitted as prior inconsistent stmts where her testimony not inconsistent.
  • Proper to rebut D's testimony at trial with prior voluntary exculpatory statement.
  • Credibility of witness may be attacked by any party, even party who called him. Inconsistent statements properly used to impeach witness.


    •