P

Table of Forms

Thesaurus

						iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Evidence-Hearsay			United States Law.US

US Codes

State Codes

Evidence

Law Students-USL

Federal Civil Procedure-Main Page

Medical Dictionaries

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page
A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Evidence-Hearsay Exception-Spontaneous Statements
(People v. Cage.)
A - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- K to Z

Evidence-Hearsay Exception-Spontaneous Statements-Evid. C Sec 1240-Criminal LawPeoplev. Cage

A. Section 1240: Spontaneous Statements.

Under section 1240, the hearsay rule does not apply to a statement that “(a) [p]urports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant; and [¶] (b) [w]as made spontaneously while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception.”

“‘The crucial element in determining whether a declaration is sufficiently reliable to be admissible under this exception to the hearsay rule is . . . the mental state of the speaker. The nature of the utterance -- how long it was made after the startling incident and whether the speaker blurted it out, for example -- may be important, but solely as an indicator of the mental state of the declarant. . . . [U]ltimately each fact pattern must be considered on its own merits, and the trial court is vested with reasonable discretion in the matter.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 541, quoting People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 903-904.)

Defendant argues, as she did at trial, that too much time had elapsed for John’s statements to be considered spontaneous. Significantly, she has never argued, below or in this court, that there was insufficient evidence that John was under the stress of excitement. Indeed, in the trial court, defense counsel conceded, “Had [John] made the statement[s] at the time of this incident . . . , that would be spontaneous.” She did not request a hearing under Evidence Code section 402. She did not ask the trial court to listen to the tape of the third statement before it ruled, nor has she asked to have the tape transmitted to this court so that we could listen to it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 18(a)(1).) Accordingly, in this appeal, defendant is limited to the contention that the amount of elapsed time was excessive. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a).)

Defendant concedes that the first and second statements were made about one hour after John was injured, and the third statement was made about three hours after John was injured.[2] This lapse of time did not preclude a finding that the statements were spontaneous. “‘ . . . “Neither lapse of time between the event and the declarations nor the fact that the declarations were elicited by questioning deprives the statements of spontaneity if it nevertheless appears that they were made under the stress of excitement and while the reflective powers were still in abeyance.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Brown, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 541, italics omitted, quoting People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 319, quoting People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1170, 1176.) In People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, the Supreme Court held that an elapsed time of 18 hours did not preclude admission under section 1240. (Raley, at pp. 893-894; see also In re Emilye A. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1695, 1713 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] [elapsed time of “a day or two” did not preclude admission under section 1240].)

Defendant argues that John not only had time to fabricate, but also a motive for doing so ‑‑ there was a warrant out for his arrest, and he would not want the police to think he assaulted his mother rather than vice versa. This motive existed, however, from the very moment the fight ended. Its mere existence does not preclude the possibility that John was speaking unreflectively, under the stress of excitement. If he could be excited and unreflective at the time, he could still have been excited and unreflective three hours later. Certainly we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by so finding.

Thus, defendant has not shown that the trial court erred by admitting John’s hearsay statements under section 1240.

People v. Cage E034242 7/15/04hearsay statements were not admissible
People v. Cage E034242-7/15/04-CA4/2-pdf

Date Posted	Docket #/ File Format	Description
Jul 15 2004	E034242 [PDF] [DOC]	P. v. Cage 7/15/04 CA4/2

A - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- K to Z
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents
Thesaurus Directory
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents