You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters

Trial Attorney's Evidence Code Notebook 2022

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 CP31097

Approx. 820 pages, softcover, 2022

 

$ 240.00

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 ..... xi

Select New Developments in the 2021 Edition ..... xiii

Cutoff Dates and CEB Citation ..... xv

Note on Proposition 8 ..... xvii

DIVISION 1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND CONSTRUCTION (§§1–12) ..... 3

DIVISION 2. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED (§§100–260) ..... 11

DIVISION 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS ..... 41

  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) ..... 105

DIVISION 5. BURDEN OF PROOF; BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES ..... 141

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

  Chapter 2. Burden of Producing Evidence (§550)

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

DIVISION 6. WITNESSES ..... 211

  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 ..... 309

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

DIVISION 8. PRIVILEGES ..... 351

  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 ..... 517

  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 ..... 599

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

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

DIVISION 11. WRITINGS ..... 719

  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 ..... 779

Table of Cases ..... 803

Index ..... 867

SELECT NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE 2021 EDITION

Evidence Code Sections 1010.5 and 1038.2. Effective Jan. 1, 2021, SB 1371 makes a few nonsubstantive changes to these statutes. See Stats 2020, ch 370.

Burden of proof. In Masellis v Law Office of Leslie F. Jensen (2020) 50 CA5th 1077, the court of appeal held that the burden of proof in a “settle and sue” legal malpractice action is preponderance of evidence. See Evid C §115.

Unavailability of witnesses. For a recent example of how a sexual assault witness who refused to testify was considered unavailable to testify after reasonable attempts were made to compel her appearance, see People v Lawson (2020) 52 CA5th 1121 in Evid C §240.

Relevancy. In People v Miles (2020) 9 C5th 513, the supreme court found that there was no abuse of discretion in permitting a prosecutor to cross-examine defense counsel about the motive in seeking a competency hearing. For a recent case on the relevancy of rap videos and lyrics, see People v Coneal (2020) 41 CA5th 951 in Evid C §352.

Judicial notice. The trial court need not take judicial notice of evidence not presented to the court. See Aixtron, Inc. v Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 CA5th 360 in Evid C §452.

Presumptions. In In re Brace (2020) 9 C5th 903, the supreme court found that the presumption of title in a dispute between a married couple and a bankruptcy trustee depends on whether property is separate or community. See Evid C §662.

Experts. For a recent case discussing how a physical medicine doctor was not qualified to offer opinions on neurology, see Lowery v Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. (2020) 49 CA5th 119 in Evid C §720. In People v Suarez (2020) 10 C5th 116, the supreme court held that, even if an interpreter was not sworn in or certified, there was no prejudice because an independent interpreter reviewed the translation. See Evid C §751. For a recent case discussing the qualifications of a blood spatter expert, see People v Morales (2020) 10 C5th 76 in Evid C §801. For a recent case discussing how the Kelly-Frye test did not apply to enhanced videos, see People v Tran (2020) 50 CA5th 171 in Evid C §801.

Attorney-client privilege. E-mails to the attorneys at a public agency regarding a legal issue were not privileged conversation. See Wood v Superior Court (2020) 46 CA5th 562 in Evid C §952. In O&C Creditors Group, LLC v Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC (2019) 42 CA5th 546, the court of appeal held that an assignee of an attorney’s claims could invoke the breach of duty arising out of the lawyer-client relationship exception. See Evid C §958.

Privileges. In Fish v Superior Court (2019) 42 CA5th 811, the court of appeal held that the disclosure of use of prescription medication does not waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege. See Evid C §1013. In Amgen Inc. v California Correctional Health Care Servs. (2020) 47 CA5th 716, the trial court properly used trade secret definition in CC §3426.1(d)). See Evid C §1060. In People v Frederickson (2020) 8 C5th 963, the supreme court held that the newsperson’s shield law applied when the defendant failed to show that a reporter’s notes would vary significantly from his testimony. See Evid C §1070.

Character evidence. In People v Anderson (2019) 42 CA5th 780, the court of appeal held that evidence of the defendant having previously stolen lawn ornaments was properly admitted to support the inference that he intended to steal. See Evid C §1101. In People v DelRio (2020) 54 CA5th 47, the violent nature of victim was relevant to the issue of use of deadly self-defense. See Evid C §1103.

Evidence of other acts of domestic violence. In People v Wang (2020) 46 CA5th 1055, the court of appeal held that a prior act of domestic violence offense was allowed in a murder case involving the prior victim’s mother-in-law and father-in-law. See Evid C §1109.

Hearsay. For a recent case on adoptive admissions discussing how a police chief was authorized to make statements on behalf of the city, see Koussaya v City of Stockton (2020) 54 CA5th 909 in Evid C §1222. In People v Liggins (2020) 53 CA5th 55, the court of appeal held that although the witness’s statements were spontaneous, their admission violated the defendant’s confrontation rights. See Evid C §1240. In People v Quintanilla (2020) 45 CA5th 1039, the court of appeal held that out-of-court statements were improperly admitted for a propensity inference without evidence showing a specific intent to dissuade the victim from testifying or getting outside help. See Evid C §1390.

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