CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Domestic Violence
......Criminal Prosecution Options
.........Evid. Issues re Domestic Violence
12 Cards On This Topic:

Hearsay exceptions: narration of infliction or threat of physical injury.

Using Wife’s statements at D’s trial violated Confrontation Clause: Where testimonial stmts at issue, only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands (6th Amend.) is actual confrontation and opportunity to cross-examine.

Where testimonial evidence is at issue, Sixth Amendment demands what common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

As unwarned stipulation to a prior DV conviction (PC 273.5(e)(1)) had the direct consequence of subjecting D to longer prison term, stipulation was invalid under In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 and sentence set aside.

Charges in CA that H injured W in HI dismissed where no evidence H did an overt act in CA intended as a material step toward committing HI offenses, nor that he intended punching W in HI to produce detrimental effects in CA.

Murdered W’s out-of-court statements that she feared H properly admitted where her mental state was placed in issue.

Trial court properly admitted W's statements concerning D's assault on the dog as circumstantial evidence of her state of mind and her concern for her safety and for that of Cs.

At H’s trial for murdering W, no abuse of discretion in allowing expert testimony on intimate partner abuse under EC 1250, 1240, 801 and 1107.

Trial court properly admitted O's hearsay testimony of D's wife narrating the infliction of physical where D had opportunity to cross-examine her at prelim.; Crawford v. Wash. standard applied.

Court did not err in admitting evidence of D's prior act of domestic violence under EC 1109.

Evidence of other acts of domestic violence.

Hearsay exception re threats of harm does not violate confrontation clause