AB 593, as introduced, Levine. Hearsay: admissibility of statements.
Existing law, known as the “hearsay rule,” provides that, at a hearing, evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is inadmissible. Existing law also provides exceptions to the hearsay rule to permit the admission of specified kinds of evidence. Existing law provides that evidence of a statement that is offered against a party who has engaged, or aided and abetted, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule, as specified. Existing law would repeal this exception on January 1, 2016.
This bill would delete the January 1, 2016, repeal date for these provisions, thereby extending the hearsay exemption into perpetuity.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1390 of the Evidence Code is amended
2to read:
(a) Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible
2by the hearsay rule if the statement is offered against a party that
3has engaged, or aided and abetted, in the wrongdoing that was
4intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as
5a witness.
6(b) (1) The party seeking to introduce a statement pursuant to
7subdivision (a) shall establish, by a preponderance of the evidence,
8that the elements of subdivision (a) have been met at a foundational
9hearing.
10(2) The hearsay evidence that is the subject of the foundational
11hearing is admissible at the foundational hearing. However, a
12finding that the elements of subdivision (a) have been met shall
13not be based solely on
the unconfronted hearsay statement of the
14unavailable declarant, and shall be supported by independent
15corroborative evidence.
16(3) The foundational hearing shall be conducted outside the
17presence of the jury. However, if the hearing is conducted after a
18jury trial has begun, the judge presiding at the hearing may consider
19evidence already presented to the jury in deciding whether the
20elements of subdivision (a) have been met.
21(4) In deciding whether or not to admit the statement, the judge
22may take into account whether it is trustworthy and reliable.
23(c) This section shall apply to any civil, criminal, or juvenile
24case or proceeding initiated or pending as of January 1, 2011.
25(d) This section shall remain in
effect only until January 1, 2016,
26and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
27is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends that date. If
28this section is repealed, the fact that it is repealed, should it occur,
29shall not be deemed to give rise to any ground for an appeal or a
30postverdict challenge based on its use in a criminal or juvenile
31case or proceeding before January 1, 2016.
O
99