This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Law Practice,
Evidence

Apr. 24, 2024

Reflecting on spontaneous statements

The welter of exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay—besides resembling something from the old boardgame Mousetrap—tends to include many exceptions that appear to have been handed down from long ago through the common law as a form of folk wisdom.

Shutterstock

Can a statement about events five years in the past be admitted as a “spontaneous statement” under the exception to the Rule Against Hearsay set out in Evidence Code § 1240? The California Court of Appeal for the First Circuit, Division 3 dealt with that question recently, in People v. Lozano (Apr. 10, 2024) A165646, 2024 WL 1550785. The court concluded that, because the declarant had had time to reflect on her statement and had in fact re...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)