Also known as: Evid. Code §1235 · CEC §1235 · prior inconsistent statement · CEC 1235
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory rule that allows any prior inconsistent statement by a witness to be admitted as substantive evidence of the facts asserted, without the limitations found in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Cade Carpenter sued Crown Pharmaceuticals after a medication caused severe side effects. During settlement talks Crown's negotiator admitted the company had received earlier complaints about the same side effects. At trial Carpenter's expert gave testimony that differed from those admissions. Crown attempted to introduce the negotiation statements to contradict the expert. The court admitted the statements as substantive evidence under §1235.
Cameron Cruz testified at trial that he had always followed safety protocols at Cedar Creek Farms. Defense counsel sought to introduce an earlier written statement by Cruz asserting he had received adequate rest before a shift. Counsel did not first give Cruz an opportunity to explain or deny the statement. The court admitted the prior statement as substantive evidence under §1235 after the witness was confronted.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Clifford Cox was indicted and advised of his right to remain silent. After meeting with counsel he was questioned alone by a regulator and made statements about fund use. At trial Cox testified that all expenditures were for program needs. The prosecutor offered the earlier statements under §1235 to prove the facts asserted. The court admitted the statements after finding they were voluntary.
Christine Castro testified at trial that she had never seen safety violations at Cypress Technologies. The prosecutor offered her earlier sworn statement describing multiple violations. The court admitted the prior statement as substantive evidence of the violations because the witness was available for cross-examination.
Colin Chambers testified at trial that he had not been near the scene of the incident. The prosecutor sought to introduce statements that placed him at the scene. The court allowed the statements under §1235 as substantive evidence after determining they were voluntary and inconsistent with trial testimony.
Cynthia Cortez testified that all turbine inspections had been completed the week before an accident at Crestview Holdings. The defense offered an earlier audit summary she prepared that omitted any mention of blade inspections. The court admitted the summary under §1235 to prove the facts asserted.
Section 1235 permits any prior inconsistent statement to be admitted as substantive evidence. The federal rule limits substantive use to statements given under oath at certain proceedings. California courts therefore admit a broader range of prior statements for their truth.
Supporting sources
California courts require proof that the claimed memory loss is feigned. The prior statement is then treated as inconsistent and admissible as substantive evidence.
Supporting sources
Yes. The statute expressly authorizes substantive use of the statement rather than limiting it to impeachment.
Supporting sources
…as well. He objects to the introduction of the testimony of his Pretrial Services Officer concerning a defense witness’s alleged prior inconsistent statement on the ground that pretrial services information is rendered confidential by 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1) (1982). Stevens also protests the extent to which the district court, applying our…