The General Rule: Hearsay Is Inadmissible

by

When prosecutors cannot make their case through live, in-court testimony, they often turn to hearsay — especially alleged victim statements made to police, medical providers, or third parties. In California criminal cases, understanding how these statements come in — and how to keep them out — can determine the outcome of a trial.

At the Law Offices of William M. Weinberg, hearsay litigation is not treated as an afterthought. It is often the central battleground.

Below is a practical overview of how California law handles victim hearsay — and where the real defense opportunities lie.

The General Rule: Hearsay Is Inadmissible

Under California Evidence Code §1200, hearsay — an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts — is inadmissible unless it falls within a statutory exception.

That sounds simple. In practice, prosecutors rely heavily on exceptions. The real legal fight is whether the statement fits the exception and whether the Constitution blocks it anyway.

The Most Common Hearsay Exceptions Used in Criminal Cases

1. Spontaneous Statements (Excited Utterances)

Evidence Code §1240 allows admission of statements made during a startling event while the declarant is still under the stress of excitement.

In domestic violence or assault cases, this often includes:

  • 911 calls
  • Statements made to responding officers
  • Emotional statements at the scene

The prosecution must show:

  1. A startling event occurred
  2. The statement relates to it
  3. The declarant was still under stress

The defense question is direct: Was there time to reflect, exaggerate, or fabricate?

When a statement becomes detailed, narrative, or calmly delivered, it may no longer qualify as spontaneous.

2. Statements for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment

Under Evidence Code §1253, statements made for purposes of medical treatment may be admissible.

These frequently arise in:

  • Domestic violence cases
  • Sexual assault examinations
  • Child abuse allegations

But not every statement to a nurse or doctor qualifies. If the “medical” setting is functioning as a forensic evidence-gathering interview, the exception may not apply.

The key issue: Was the primary purpose treatment — or building a criminal case?

3. Prior Inconsistent Statements

Evidence Code §1235 allows prior inconsistent statements to be admitted for their truth if the witness testifies and is subject to cross-examination.

This is especially significant in domestic violence cases where a complaining witness recants at trial.

If the witness takes the stand and changes the story, earlier statements to police can come in substantively.

This exception dramatically shifts trial dynamics and requires strategic preparation.

4. Statements of Then-Existing Mental or Emotional State

Under Evidence Code §1250, statements reflecting fear, intent, or emotional condition may be admissible.

For example:
“I’m afraid of him” may be admissible to show fear.

But:
“He hit me yesterday” is a statement of past conduct and typically not admissible under this exception.

This distinction is critical. Prosecutors sometimes attempt to stretch this rule beyond its limits.

5. The Domestic Violence Hearsay Exception

Evidence Code §1370 allows admission of certain statements describing infliction or threat of injury when:

  • The declarant is unavailable
  • The statement was made near the time of injury
  • Circumstances indicate trustworthiness
  • The statement was written, recorded, or made to law enforcement or medical personnel

The defense must carefully examine:

  • Is the witness truly unavailable?
  • Was the statement close enough in time?
  • Are there reliability concerns?

This exception is powerful — but it is not automatic.

The Constitutional Overlay: The Confrontation Clause

Even if a statement fits a hearsay exception under California law, the Sixth Amendment may prohibit its admission.

The landmark decision in Crawford v. Washington fundamentally changed hearsay law in criminal cases.

The rule is clear:

If a statement is “testimonial,” it cannot be admitted unless:

  1. The witness is unavailable, and
  2. The defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.

So what counts as testimonial?

Subsequent cases like Davis v. Washington established the “primary purpose” test.

If the primary purpose of the statement was to address an ongoing emergency, it may be non-testimonial.

If the primary purpose was to establish past facts for prosecution, it is likely testimonial — and therefore inadmissible without prior cross-examination.

This distinction is often decisive in:

  • 911 recordings
  • Police body camera interviews
  • Stationhouse questioning
  • Structured forensic interviews

Forfeiture by Wrongdoing

Under Evidence Code §1390, if a defendant intentionally prevents a witness from testifying — through threats, coercion, or wrongdoing — hearsay statements may become admissible.

However, the prosecution must prove intent to procure the witness’s unavailability.

Allegations of pressure or influence are not enough. This is another area where evidentiary hearings can significantly shape a case.

Strategic Importance in Criminal Defense

Hearsay litigation is not technical window dressing. It is leverage.

When key statements are excluded:

  • Charges can weaken
  • Negotiation positions improve
  • Trials become far more defensible

Conversely, when damaging hearsay is admitted without effective challenge, the jury may hear statements that were never tested through cross-examination.

Successful litigation requires:

  • Demanding foundational hearings under Evidence Code §402
  • Forcing the prosecution to articulate the precise exception relied upon
  • Separating statutory admissibility from constitutional admissibility
  • Meticulously analyzing timing, tone, context, and reliability

Each statement must be evaluated independently.

Why This Matters

In many criminal cases — particularly domestic violence, assault, and sexual offense allegations — the prosecution’s case may rise or fall on statements made outside the courtroom.

Understanding how to analyze spontaneity, reliability, unavailability, and testimonial character is essential to protecting a defendant’s constitutional rights.

At the Law Offices of William M. Weinberg, evidentiary challenges are approached strategically and aggressively. Every statement is examined not only under California Evidence Code provisions, but also through the lens of the Sixth Amendment.

When the government attempts to substitute paperwork, recordings, or secondhand testimony for live cross-examination, the law provides meaningful tools to push back.

If you are facing criminal charges in California and hearsay statements are central to the prosecution’s case, early intervention is critical.

Contact Information

To discuss your case confidentially:

Law Offices of William M. Weinberg
Phone: (949) 474.8008
Email: bill@williamweinberg.com

Prompt and strategic action can make a substantial difference in the trajectory of a criminal case.

If you have questions about hearsay, Confrontation Clause protections, or evidentiary challenges in California criminal court, call today for a consultation.