Sidebar: Evidence Code 1240

📄 Sidebar: Evidence Code 1240 — Monday, February 6, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\6\SIDEBAR-EVIDENCE-CODE-1240.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 13 of 167

◀ Direct examination of Cynthia Shahian (part 2) Direct examination of Cynthia Shahian (part 3) ▶

Date: Monday, February 6, 1995 • Utterances: 12

Darden argued that a letter-reading incident qualified as an excited utterance under California Evidence Code 1240, pointing to a witness's emotional reaction (becoming 'angry and upset and devastated and horrified') upon reading a letter as sufficient foundation. Cochran objected that it was inadmissible hearsay without a valid exception, noting the court had already ruled it inadmissible once. Judge Ito sustained the objection, rejecting Darden's attempt to re-lay foundation.

# 1 THE COURT:

WAS IT 1240? ALL RIGHT. I'M LISTENING.

# 2 MR. DARDEN:

IT'S ADMISSIBLE UNDER 1240.

# 3 MR. COCHRAN:

ADMISSIBLE? IT'S HEARSAY.

# 4 MR. DARDEN:

EVERYTHING THAT INCRIMINATES HIS CLIENT, MR. COCHRAN DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO --

KEY QUOTE

# 5 MR. COCHRAN:

I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP YOU FROM WASTING TIME.

# 6 MR. DARDEN:

PURPORTS TO NARRATE, DESCRIBE OR EXPLAIN AN ACT, CONDITION OR EVENT PERCEIVED BY THE DECLARANT AND IT WAS MADE SPONTANEOUS WHILE THE DECLARANT WAS UNDER THE STRESS OF THE EXCITEMENT.

# 7 MR. COCHRAN:

IT'S HEARSAY. IT'S NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE.

# 8 MR. DARDEN:

YOU RULED IT INADMISSIBLE INITIALLY BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WASN'T AN APPARENT RESPONSE TO SOMETHING. NOW WE KNOW THAT IT IS.

# 9 MR. COCHRAN:

IT'S NOT IN RESPONSE TO ANYTHING.

# 10 MR. DARDEN:

HER DEMEANOR INITIALLY WAS NORMAL AND THEN CHANGED WHEN SHE RETRIEVED THE LETTER, AND WHEN SHE READ THE LETTER, THEN SHE BECAME ANGRY AND UPSET AND DEVASTATED AND HORRIFIED, AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION UNDER 1240.

KEY QUOTE

# 11 MR. COCHRAN:

THERE'S NO FOUNDATION UNDER 1240. IT'S STILL HEARSAY. I MEAN HOW AM I GOING TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER ON THIS STATEMENT? YOU ELICITED FROM THE WITNESS SHE'S DEVASTATED AND ALL THESE THINGS IN THIS LETTER, AND THAT'S AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO ON THIS. AND BESIDES, THE COURT RULED AND NOW WE ARE BACK UP HERE AGAIN.

# 12 THE COURT:

HE TRIED TO LAY SOME ADDITIONAL FOUNDATION. OBJECTION SUSTAINED.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Christopher Darden

HER DEMEANOR INITIALLY WAS NORMAL AND THEN CHANGED WHEN SHE RETRIEVED THE LETTER, AND WHEN SHE READ THE LETTER, THEN SHE BECAME ANGRY AND UPSET AND DEVASTATED AND HORRIFIED, AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION UNDER 1240.

Darden's core argument for the excited utterance exception — the emotional transformation upon reading the letter as the triggering event.

Johnnie Cochran

HOW AM I GOING TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER ON THIS STATEMENT? YOU ELICITED FROM THE WITNESS SHE'S DEVASTATED AND ALL THESE THINGS IN THIS LETTER, AND THAT'S AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO ON THIS.

Cochran's confrontation clause / cross-examination concern, and his argument that Darden had already extracted what he could from the witness.

Johnnie Cochran

BESIDES, THE COURT RULED AND NOW WE ARE BACK UP HERE AGAIN.

Cochran flagging that Darden was relitigating a previously decided ruling.

Christopher Darden

EVERYTHING THAT INCRIMINATES HIS CLIENT, MR. COCHRAN DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO --

Darden's frustration boiling over into a personal jab at Cochran before being cut off.

Evidence (1)

Informal

A letter read by a witness whose demeanor changed dramatically upon reading it — contents not specified in transcript

discussed as potential basis for excited utterance exception

Notable Exchanges (1)

Christopher Darden•Johnnie Cochran

Darden attempted to relitigate a prior ruling by offering additional foundation; Cochran pushed back sharply, accusing Darden of wasting time and relitigating settled issues. Darden responded with a personal dig about Cochran objecting to everything incriminating.

heated

Objections

2 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 4748 • 12 utterances

Criminal Trial

Department 103