Chapter 3 - §6. Exception—Party's adoptive admission

• Jurisdiction: United States

§6. Exception—Party's adoptive admission

A party's adoptive admission of another person's out-of-court statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when offered by a party-opponent. Evid. C. §1221.

§6.1. Overview. An adoptive admission is a statement on any relevant subject in the case offered against a party who has knowledge of the other person's hearsay statement and who, by words or conduct, manifested belief in or adoption of its truth. People v. Castille (1st Dist.2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 863, 876; see People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 229; People v. Armstrong (2019) 6 Cal.5th 735, 789-90. The rationale for this exception is that if someone else made a statement about the defendant that would ordinarily call for a response if it were untrue, in a setting where the defendant both heard and understood the statement, the defendant's silence, evasion, or equivocation is treated as if the defendant made the statement himself. See Armstrong, 6 Cal.5th at 789-90; People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 661; People v. Sample (4th Dist.2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1262; see, e.g., In re Brown (4th Dist.2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 699, 722 (pet. granted 6-10-20; No. S261454) (failure to object to probation report during hearing did not constitute circumstances that would normally call for response if statements contained in report were untrue).

Federal Comparison The FREs treat a statement "the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true" as admissible nonhearsay rather than a hearsay exception. FRE 801(d)(2)(B).

§6.2. Requirements for exception. For an adoptive admission to be admissible as a hearsay exception, the following criteria must be met:

1. Party had knowledge of statement. The party (i.e., the defendant) must have knowledge of the other person's statement, although the proof may be circumstantial. Evid. C. §1221; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 623. Generally, this requires that there be sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant both heard and understood the statement under circumstances that would normally call for a response. People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 535; In re Brown (4th Dist.2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 699, 722 (pet. granted 6-10-20; No. S261454). The defendant's knowledge is a preliminary fact under Evid. C. §403, and the court may require proof of knowledge before the statement is admitted into evidence or may admit the statement on the condition that proof of knowledge will be submitted later. See "Fact determinations under Evid. C. §403," ch. 7, §3.1.

Case study 1. A coconspirator to a crime testified that he and the defendant listened as a third-party participant in the crime described how the third party and the defendant gunned down a man they had kidnapped. Silva, 45 Cal.3d at 623. The coconspirator testified that the defendant could hear the third party's description of the defendant's role in the murder because the defendant smiled when the facts of the crime were recounted in his presence. Id. at 623-24. The statements made by the third party were deemed to have been adopted by the defendant by his conduct and silence. Id.

Case study 2. A signed rental car invoice was found in the defendant's home. People v. Maki (1985) 39 Cal.3d 707, 709. The invoice indicated that the defendant had rented a car from a rental company in Chicago. Id. In evaluating the evidence, the court concluded that the "[d]efendant's authenticated signatures on the invoice, even when considered in conjunction with the fact that it was found when his home was searched, did not provide sufficient foundation for the documents to be admitted pursuant to section 1221." Id. at 713. In making this determination, the court suggested that the knowledge prong of the adoptive-admission exception might have been satisfied by independent evidence that the defendant had actually read the document before signing it. Id. at 712.

Case study 3. Copies of the defendant's motel registration card, room-payment receipt, and key-deposit return receipt were admitted into evidence (along with the testimony of the hotel's assistant manager) to establish that the defendant had registered for two guests when he rented a motel room. People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 131-32. The...