You have no items in your shopping cart.
Close
Search
Filters

Trial Attorney's Evidence Code Notebook 2024

During trial preparation and in the courtroom, use this annotated Evidence Code to quickly determine whether you can present particular evidence or object to the admission of evidence by reviewing the Evidence Code section and cases in which it has been applied.

During trial preparation and in the courtroom, use this annotated Evidence Code to quickly determine whether you can present particular evidence or object to the admission of evidence by reviewing the Evidence Code section and cases in which it has been applied.

  • Extensive annotations, cross references, and illustrative cases
  • Latest amendments to the Evidence Code
  • Recent cases interpreting various Evidence Code sections, including those on:
    • expert witness qualifications
    • privilege
    • character evidence
Print CP31099

Approx. 820 pages, softcover, 

$ 281.00
  • Overview
  • Table of Contents
  • selected developments
  • OnLAW System Requirements
  • Specifications

During trial preparation and in the courtroom, use this annotated Evidence Code to quickly determine whether you can present particular evidence or object to the admission of evidence by reviewing the Evidence Code section and cases in which it has been applied.

  • Extensive annotations, cross references, and illustrative cases
  • Latest amendments to the Evidence Code
  • Recent cases interpreting various Evidence Code sections, including those on:
    • expert witness qualifications
    • privilege
    • character evidence

CONTENTS

Preface

Select New Developments in the 2024 Edition

Cutoff Dates and CEB Citation

Note on Proposition 8

DIVISION 1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND
 CONSTRUCTION (§§1–12)

DIVISION 2. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED (§§100–260)

DIVISION 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS

        Chapter 1. Applicability of Code (§300)

        Chapter 2. Province of Court and Jury (§§310–312)

        Chapter 3. Order of Proof (§320)

        Chapter 4. Admitting and Excluding Evidence (§§350–406)

        Chapter 5. Weight of Evidence Generally (§§410–413)

DIVISION 4. JUDICIAL NOTICE (§§450–460)

DIVISION 5. BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES

        Chapter 1. Burden of Proof (§§500–524)

        Chapter 2. Burden of Producing Evidence (§550)

        Chapter 3. Presumptions and Inferences (§§600–670)

DIVISION 6. WITNESSES

        Chapter 1. Competency (§§700–704)

        Chapter 2. Oath and Confrontation (§§710–712)

        Chapter 3. Expert Witnesses (§§720–733)

        Chapter 4. Interpreters and Translators (§§750–757)

        Chapter 5. Method and Scope of Examination (§§760–778)

        Chapter 6. Credibility of Witnesses (§§780–791)

        Chapter 7. Hypnosis of Witnesses (§795)

DIVISION 7. OPINION TESTIMONY AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE          313

        Chapter 1. Expert and Other Opinion Testimony (§§800–870)

DIVISION 8. PRIVILEGES

        Chapter 1. Definitions (§§900–905)

        Chapter 2. Applicability of Division (§910)

        Chapter 3. General Provisions Relating to Privileges (§§911–920)

        Chapter 4. Particular Privileges (§§930–1063)

        Chapter 5. Immunity of Newsman From Citation for Contempt (§1070)

DIVISION 9. EVIDENCE AFFECTED OR EXCLUDED BY EXTRINSIC POLICIES

        Chapter 1. Evidence of Character, Habit, or Custom (§§1100–1109)

        Chapter 2. Mediation (§§1115–1129)

        Chapter 3. Other Evidence Affected or Excluded by Extrinsic Policies (§§1150–1162)

DIVISION 10. HEARSAY EVIDENCE

        Chapter 1. General Provisions (§§1200–1205)

        Chapter 2. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule (§§1220–1390)

DIVISION 11. WRITINGS

        Chapter 1. Authentication and Proof of Writings (§§1400–1454)

        Chapter 2. Secondary Evidence of Writings (§§1520–1567)

        Chapter 3. Official Writings Affecting Property (§§1600–1605)

Table of Statutes

Table of Cases

Index

SELECT NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE 2024 EDITION

Evidence Code Section 801.1. Operative January 1, 2023, newly enacted Evid C §801.1 creates additional requirements for expert opinions regarding medical causation. When the party bearing the burden of proof proffers expert testimony regarding medical causation and that party’s expert is required as a condition of testifying to opine that causation exists to a reasonable medical probability, the party not bearing the burden of proof may offer a contrary expert only if its expert is able to opine that the proffered alternative cause or causes each exists to a reasonable medical probability.

Evidence Code Section 1285. Effective January 1, 2024, newly enacted Evid C §1285.2 provides that in a law enforcement officer’s official written report or record regarding a sexual offense that resulted in a person’s conviction, statements from a victim or eyewitness of the sexual offense, or statements from a sexual assault medical examiner who examined a victim of the sexual offense, are not inadmissible hearsay at a probable cause hearing.

Relevancy. In People v Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 CA5th 1260, the court of appeal found that the limits under Evid C §351.4 were not at issue. See Evid C §351.4. In Perry v Kia Motors Am., Inc. (2023) 91 CA5th 1088, the court of appeal found that the trial court took into account undue consumption of time, and substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues or misleading the jury, when excluding evidence. See Evid C §352. In People v Slaton (2023) 95 CA5th 363, the court of appeal found that Evid C §352.2 does not apply retroactively. See Evid C §352.2.

Judicial Notice. In Let Them Choose v San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. (2022) 85 CA5th 693, the court of appeal explained that California statutes are subject to mandatory judicial notice; see Evid C §451. In South Lake Tahoe Prop. Owners Group v City of South Lake Tahoe (2023) 92 CA5th 735, the court of appeal held that courts may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions and court files. See Evid C §452. In CSHV 1999 Harrison, LLC v County of Alameda (2023) 92 CA5th 117, the court of appeal held that the existence of a contract between private parties cannot be established by judicial notice. See Evid C §452. In River's Side at Washington Sq. Homeowners Ass’n v Superior Court (2023) 88 CA5th 1209, the court of appeal held that courts may take judicial notice of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. See Evid C §452. In Amber G. v Superior Court (2023) 86 CA5th 465, the court of appeal took judicial notice that FaceTime is videoconferencing application available on Apple electronic devices. See Evid C §452. In Glassman v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. (2023) 90 CA5th 1281, the court of appeal took judicial notice of five facts for limited purpose of ruling on motion to augment; see Evid C §459.

Presumptions. In Sleep E-Z, LLC v Lopez (2023) 88 CA5th Supp 18, the court found that there was no presumption of an assignment based solely on a third party’s occupancy and payment of rent; see Evid C §600. In In re G.Z. (2022) 85 CA5th 857, a mother’s evidence that her child’s medical condition was not the result of her abuse or negligence rebutted presumption of nonaccidental causation. See Evid C §604.

Witnesses. In LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) 87 CA5th 939, the court of appeal found that, because there is no corporate representative exception, the witness was limited to matters to which she had personal knowledge. See Evid C §702. In Doe v Superior Court (2023) 15 C5th 40, the trial court neglected to “focus on, and benefit from,” key procedural and structural protections in Evid C §783. In Onglyza Prod. Cases (2023) 90 CA5th 776, the court of appeal explained that the trial court must consider whether expert’s opinion is logically sound. See Evid C §801. In Bader v Johnson & Johnson (2022) 86 CA5th 1094, the court of appeal found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting an expert witness to offer the opinion that fibrous talc causes mesothelioma. See Evid C §802.

Privileges. In Militello v VFARM 1509 (2023) 89 CA5th 602, the plaintiff failed to show the defendant spouses’ electronic communications were in aid of fraud. See Evid C §981. In Whitehair v Superior Court (2023) 93 CA5th Supp 1, the appellate division held that the patient-litigant exception is not triggered by the filing of a Pen C §290.5 termination petition or the prosecution’s request for a hearing. See Evid C §1014. In McGovern v BHC Fremont Hosp., Inc. (2022) 87 CA5th 181, the trial court erroneously believed that, even if it reviewed medical records in camera, information material to the litigation could not be disclosed to the plaintiff or used at trial. See Evid C §1024.

Character Evidence. In People v Saucedo (2023) 90 CA5th 505, the trial court erred in admitting defendant’s driving history as none of his prior incidents involved driving as dangerous as the driving that killed the victims, and there was no evidence that the defendant injured anyone in the prior incidents, or that he came close to injuring anyone. See Evid C §1101. In People v Zemek (2023) 93 CA5th 313, two prior uncharged thefts were sufficiently similar to the charged theft offenses to be relevant and probative regarding the issues of intent and common plan or scheme. See Evid C §1101. In Doe v Superior Court (2023) 15 C5th 40, the supreme court held that, subject to Evid C §783 and especially careful review and scrutiny under Evid C §352, Evid C §1106(e) may permit admission of evidence that would otherwise be excluded under Evid C §1106(a). See Evid C §1106. In People v Gobert (2023) 89 CA5th 676, statements regarding previous domestic violence incidents were inadmissible hearsay, notwithstanding Evid C §1109.

Hearsay. In Kourounian v California Dep’t of Tax & Fee Admin. (2023) 91 CA5th 1100, the court of appeal found that statements in plaintiff’s EEO complaints were inadmissible hearsay. See Evid C §1200. In People v Portillo (2023) 91 CA5th 577, the court of appeal held that evidence of the retail price for a stolen item is admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of showing that the retailer is advertising an item for a specified price in the marketplace. See Evid C §1200. In People v Bingham (2023) 95 CA5th 1072, the court of appeal found that because the trial court admitted a 911 call containing the victim’s statements, the victim’s inconsistent statements and prior convictions were admissible for impeachment. See Evid C §1202. In People v Gray (2023) 15 C5th 152, the supreme court held that the use of spontaneous statement at a probation revocation hearing must balance the defendant's confrontation interests against the countervailing interests of government. See Evid C §1240.

OnLAW System Requirements:
Desktop: Windows XP, 7 or 8, Mac OS 10.8
Mobile: iOS6, iOS7, Android 4.2
Firefox, Chrome, IE and Safari browsers

Note: OnLAW may work with some devices running older versions of these Operating Systems or Windows RT; however, functionality is not guaranteed.

Please see FAQs for more details.
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Evidence
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
Products specifications
PRACTICE AREA Civil Litigation & Torts
PRACTICE AREA Evidence
PRODUCT GROUP Publication