Chapter 1 - §3. Limits & exceptions to admissibility

• Jurisdiction: United States

§3. Limits & exceptions to admissibility

Although relevant evidence is generally admissible, in some cases it can have limited admissibility or be excluded altogether.

§3.1. Limited admissibility. In some cases, relevant evidence can be admissible as to one issue or party and inadmissible as to another issue or party. Evid. C. §355. In such instances, a party can ask the court to instruct the jury on the evidence's limited admissibility. Id. See "Limiting instructions," ch. 1, §5.4.3.

§3.2. Exceptions to admissibility. In some cases, relevant evidence can be made inadmissible by statute, treaty, or constitutional provision. See Evid. C. §§230, 351; see, e.g., Evid. C. §916 (exclusion of privileged information), §1200(b) (exclusion of hearsay evidence). Under Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2), all relevant evidence is admissible in a criminal proceeding unless expressly prohibited by that section. Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2), is commonly referred to as the truth-in-evidence amendment to the California Constitution. The amendment was passed by voters in 1982 as part of Proposition 8. The main purpose of Proposition 8 (commonly referred to as the "Victims' Bill of Rights") was to eliminate many of the rules and laws in California (constitutional, statutory, and judicial) that excluded relevant evidence in criminal cases, leaving the U.S. Constitution (and certain state statutes) as the sole basis for excluding relevant evidence. See Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2); Evid. C. §351; People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1166. In essence, the truth-in-evidence provisions of the California Constitution prohibit California courts from crafting more stringent exclusionary rules than those required by the U.S. Constitution or expressly preserved or added by Proposition 8, unless the exclusionary rules are later enacted by two-thirds of each house of the California Legislature. Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2); see People v. Roberts (3d Dist.2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 64, 109.

1. Exclusionary rules under U.S. Constitution. After the passage of Proposition 8, all relevant evidence in a criminal case is admissible unless the evidence is excluded under the U.S. Constitution. See People v. Maikhio (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1074, 1089; In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 887-90; Roberts, 68 Cal.App.5th at 109. The following evidence obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution must be excluded:

(1) Fourth Amendment violation. Generally, relevant evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures must be excluded. See "Evidence subject to exclusion under Fourth Amendment," ch. 5-A, §4. But there are a number of exceptions to this exclusionary rule. See "Exceptions to exclusionary rule," ch. 5-A, §4.2. Some of the most common include the following:

(a) Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be used to impeach the defendant's trial testimony. U.S. v. Havens (1980) 446 U.S. 620, 627-28. See "Impeachment exception," ch. 5-A, §4.2.5.

(b) Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of another person is admissible. U.S. v. Salvucci (1980) 448 U.S. 83, 85. See "Standing requirements," ch. 5-A, §5.1.3.

(c) Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a search warrant be issued with probable cause is admissible if the police officer reasonably relied on the search warrant and acted in good faith. US. v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, 909. See "Good-faith exception," ch. 5-A, §4.2.1.

(2) Fifth Amendment violation.

(a) Involuntary statements. Relevant evidence obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination must be excluded. See "Evidence subject to exclusion for involuntariness," ch. 5-B, §3.

(b) Miranda. Generally, relevant evidence obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment right to Miranda warnings must be excluded. See "Evidence subject to exclusion under Miranda," ch. 5-C, §4. But some common exceptions to this exclusionary rule include the following:

[1] Uncoerced statements taken in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment purposes. People v. May (1988) 44 Cal.3d 309, 315. See "Impeachment," ch. 5-C, §4.1.2. Such statements cannot be used, however, in the prosecution's case-in-chief. See Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 224. See "Prosecution case-in-chief," ch. 5-C, §4.1.1.

[2] Statements taken in violation of Miranda that relate to concerns for public safety are admissible. See "Public-safety exception," ch. 5-C, §3.1.

[3] Statements taken in violation of Miranda that are primarily concerned with rescuing a victim are admissible. See "Rescue-doctrine exception," ch. 5-C, §3.3.

(3) Sixth Amendment violation.

(a) Right to counsel. Unless there is a valid waiver of counsel, statements obtained by law enforcement from a person formally charged with a crime will be suppressed when the person is represented by counsel and prevented from speaking with counsel or having counsel present during questioning. See McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991) 501 U.S. 171, 175-76. See "Evidence subject to exclusion under right to counsel," ch. 5-D, §3.

(b) Right of confrontation. The Confrontation Clause in the U.S. Constitution mandates that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." This fundamental constitutional right is binding on the states under the 14th Amendment. Pointer v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400, 403. In particular, the right to confront witnesses bars the prosecution from introducing some out-of-court statements as evidence against the defendant. See "Evidence subject to exclusion under right of confrontation," ch. 5-E, §5.

2. Exclusionary rules under California law. Although Proposition 8 eliminated many exclusionary rules established under state law, it did not eliminate all of them. Proposition 8 preserved, and in some cases added, the following exclusionary rules under California law:

(1) Exclusionary rules preserved or added by Proposition 8. The state exclusionary rules that were preserved or added by Proposition 8 are the following:

(a) Hearsay. Proposition 8 preserved a court's power to exclude relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding under a statutory rule of evidence relating to hearsay. Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2). See "Hearsay," ch. 3-A, §1 et seq.

(b) Privilege. Proposition 8 preserved a court's power to exclude relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding under a statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege. Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2). See "Privileges," ch. 4-C, §1 et seq.

(c) Evid. C. §352. Proposition 8 preserved a court's power to exclude relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding under the statutory authority of Evid. C. §352. Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2). Under Evid. C. §352, a court can exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will consume an undue amount of time or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury. See "Discretionary Exclusion Under Evid. C. §352," ch. 6, §1 et seq.

(d) Evid. C. §782. Proposition 8 preserved a court's power to exclude relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding under the statutory authority of Evid. C. §782. Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2). Under Evid. C. §782, a court can exclude evidence on the sexual conduct of a complaining witness that is used to impeach the witness's credibility if certain procedures are not followed or if the court determines that the evidence should be excluded under Evid. C. §352. See "Exception—Victim's credibility," ch. 4-A, §3.3.2(2).

(e) Evid. C. §1103. Proposition 8 preserved a court's power to exclude relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding under the statutory authority of Evid. C. §1103. Cal. Const., art. I, §28(f)(2). Under Evid. C. §1103, a court can exclude evidence of a victim's sexual proclivities as a means of proving the victim's consent to the specific sexual acts for which the defendant is charged. See "Victim's character traits—Sexual propensities," ch. 4-A, §3.3.2.

(f) Diminished capacity. Under Proposition 8, Pen. C. §25(a) and (c) were added, making evidence of diminished capacity (e.g., intoxication, trauma, mental illness, disease, defect) inadmissible at the guilt stage of a criminal trial to show or negate an accused person's capacity to form a particular mental state; the court may consider such evidence only at the penalty stage. Furthermore, Pen. C. §28(a) provides that evidence of a mental disease, defect, or disorder is admissible...