#115

Escamilla v. Vannucci, ___Cal.App.5th___, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 312, 321 (2023)(“The standard of proof in
civil cases is generally a preponderance of the evidence, even where the case involves proving an offense
that in other contexts would carry a higher burden of proof”; preponderance is the “’default standard’”).

In re S.S., 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 650, 657-58 (2023)(“’The standard of proof known as
clear and convincing evidence demands a degree of certainty greater than that involved with the
preponderance standard, but less than what is required by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. Clear and convincing evidence requires a finding of high probability’”; “Courts have also
described the standard ‘as requiring that the evidence be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt;
sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind’”).
#310

In re Marriage of V.S. and V.K., ___Cal.App.5th___, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 255 (2023)(the decision of what the
law of a foreign nation is is the independent responsibility of the judge; the court of appeal may
consider the applicable statutes, court decisions, and constitutional provisions of foreign nations to
determine their legal import).
#350

People v. Wheeler, 95 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 313 Cal.Rtpr.3d 95 (Cal.Super.A.D. 2023)(the evidence was
irrelevant; the defendant’s statements were relevant only to a mistake of fact defense, but mistake of
fact is not a defense to a strict liability municipal offense).
#351.4

People v. Castaneda-Prado, 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 843 (2023)(the defense was entitled
to show that one of the named child sex abuse victims believed that by accusing the defendant of sexual
molestation, she was helping her mother obtain a U visa, one that can provide legal status for victims of
certain crimes who assist in the investigation of those crimes).
#352

Argueta v. World Flight Services, Inc., 97 Cal.App.5th 822, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 728, 739 (2023)(“When the
evidence at issue involves prior bad acts, substantial prejudice is inherent in the evidence and its
admission requires ‘extremely careful analysis.’ The evidence . . . is admissible only if it has ‘substantial’
probative value”).

640 Octavia, LLC v. Pieper, 93 Cal.App.5th 1181, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 322, 330 (2023)(the judge should
consider “’whether the evidence is relevant to the main or only a collateral issue’”).

Doe v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty., 15 Cal.5th 40, 532 P.3d 1065, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 23-24 (2023)
(when the judge applies this statute to evidence of a complainant’s other sexual conduct, the judge must
not only consider the prejudice to the party against whom the evidence is offered; the judge must also
weigh whether the process is being used to harass or intimidate the complainant or unduly invade his or
her privacy; when it enacted the special legislation, the legislature made a statement that the purpose
of the rape shield provisions is to protect a victim’s right of privacy).
#352.2

People v. Slaton, 95 Cal.App.5th 363, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 412 (2023)(there is no indication that the
legislature intended this statute to apply retroactively).
#353

Perry v. KIA Motors America, Inc., 91 Cal.App.5th 1088, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 697, 704 (2023)(“an off-record
objection is inadequate to preserve an issue for appeal”).

Atallla v. Rite Aid Corp., 89 Cal.App.5th 294 n. 3, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 5 n. 4 (2023)(“When the trial court
does not rule on objections, it is presumed the objections were overruled . . . .”).
#355

People v. Portillo, 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 500, 515 (2023)(absent a request, “’the trial
court was under no obligation to give [a] limiting instruction” as to the nonhearsay use of testimony
about an out-of-court statement).
#411

People v. Perez-Robles, 95 Cal.App.5th 63, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 372, 374 (2023)(“’The uncorroborated
testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless the testimony is physically
impossible or inherently improbable. Th[is] rule is applicable to sex [offense] cases’”).

People v. Portillo, 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 500, 508-09 (2023)(“’The standard of review is
the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances
reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because
the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding’’).

People v. Montanez, 91 Cal.App.5th 245, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 285 (2023)(“’unless the testimony is
physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a
conviction’”).
#451

In re Marriage of Lietz, ___Cal.App.5th___, 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 63, 71 (2024)(it was proper to judicially
notice the formula for calculating the area of a parallelogram; “Mathematical equations and theorems
are a proper subject of judicial notice”).

Yerra Buena Nbhd. V. Regents of Univ., 95 Cal.App.5th 779 n. 2, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 701, 710 n. 2 (2023)
(requests for judicial notice are rarely appropriate in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases).

Estate of Sanchez, 95 Cal.App.5th 331 n. 5, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 109, 113-14 n. 5 (2023)(a “court does not
need to take judicial notice of case law in order to rely on it in the opinion”).

S. Lake Tahoe Owners v. S. Lake Tahoe, 92 Cal.App.5th 735, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 9, 24 (2023)(“Courts may
not take judicial notice of allegations in affidavits, declarations or probation reports in court records
because such matters are reasonably subject to dispute and therefore require formal proof”).
#452

People v. Carter, 97 Cal.App.5th 960 n. 3, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 895, 903-04 n. 3 (2023)(judicial notice of
legislative history materials).

In re Marriage of V.S. and V.K., ___Cal.App.5th____, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 255 (2023)(the decision of what
the law of a foreign is is the independent responsibility of the judge; the court of appeal may consider
the applicable statute, court decisions, and constitutional provisions of foreign nations to determine
their legal import).

Perez v. Galt Joint Union Elementary School Dist., ___Cal.App.5th___, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 194, 200 (2023)
(legislative committee reports and analyses).

Marina Coast Water v. Cty. of Monterey, 96 Cal.App.5th 19 nn. 15-16, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 19, 35 nn. 15-16
(2023)(the Coastal Commission’s Finding Adopted Findings following a hearing and the legislative history
materials related to Monterey’s general plan).

Maarten v. Cohanzad, 95 Cal.App.5th 596 n. 8, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 589, 599 n. 8 (2023)(“’[t]o determine
the purpose of legislation, a court may consult contemporary legislative history committee analyses of
that legislation, which are subject to judicial notice’”).

Coastal Protection Alliance, Inc. v. Airbnb, 95 Cal.App.5th 207 n. 8, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 272 n. 8 (2023)
(the Coastal Commission’s actions relating to proposed amendments to local coastal programs in two
cities and Coastal Commission staff reports).

Metabyte, Inc. v. Technicolor A.A., 94 Cal.App.5th 265, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 129, 138-39 (2023)(the court
refused to take judicial notice of the content of a declaration describing French law and French
proceedings between the parties in French court; the description of the law and procedural history was

In re A.B., 95 Cal.App.5th 82 n. 2, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 825, 829 n. 2 (2023)(“’it is unnecessary to seek

judicial notice of published legislative history. Citation to the material is sufficient””).

People v. Antonelli, 93 Cal.App.5th 712 n. 2, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 267-68 n. 1 (2023)(statements in a

“factsheet regarding the impact” of certain statutes prepared by the Office of the State Public Defender
were not subject to judicial notice).

United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 93 Cal.App.5th 1074 n. 4, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d
80, 85 n. 4 (2023)(the court took judicial notice of various sections of a city municipal code and the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s definition of “infill development”).

Hesperia v. Lake Arrowhead Community Services, 92 Cal.App.5th 958, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 915, 931-32
(2023)(a motion for judicial notice of published legislative history material is unnecessary; a citation to
the material is sufficient).

CSHV 1999 Harrison, LLC v. County of Alameda, 92 Cal.App.5th 117 n. 12, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 322, 334 n.
12 (2023)(“’the existence of a contract between private parties cannot be established by judicial
notice . . . ‘”).
 Conservatorship of Tedesco, 91 Cal.App.5th 285 n 1, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 296, 301 n. 1 (“when courts take
judicial notice of the existence of court documents, the legal effect of the results reached in the orders
and judgments may be established”).

River’s Side Homeowners v. Superior Court, 88 Cal.Apo.5th 1209 n. 3, 305 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 541 n. 3
(2023)(recorded covenants, code, and restrictions).

Securus Tech. v. Pub. Utilities Com’n, 88 Cal.App.5th 787 n. 11, 305 Cal.Rptr.3d 153, 166 n. 11 (2023)(a
contract negotiated between the California Department of Corrections and other services providers).
#459

People ex rel. Schlesinger v. Sachs, 97 Cal.App.5th 800, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 810, 821 (2023)(“’An appellate
court may properly decline to take judicial notice . . . of a matter that should have been presented to the
trial court . . . in the first instance’”).

Villarroel v. Recology, Inc., 97 Cal.App.5th 762 n. 2, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 774, 781 n. 2 (2023)(the complaint
and judgment in a separate Unfair Competition Law action, ordinances, and records from a company’s
application to the city for a rate adjustment).

Sonoma Luxury Resort LLC v. Cal. Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region,
___Cal.App.5th____ n. 2, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 848, 851 n. 2 (2023)(the transcript of a regional water quality
control board’s ruling on the owner’s prehearing objections to the remote format of a video conference
hearing).

Martin v. Gladstone, ___Cal.App.5th____n. 7, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 649, 656 n. 7 (2023)(if a trial judge
properly notices a matter, notice by the appellate court is mandatory).

Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, ___Cal.App.5th____549, 568-69 (2023)(“It is not sufficient that the
evidence be relevant to an argument made by the proponent. The evidence must be relevant to the
disposition of the matter”).

Homeward Opportunities Fund v. Taptelis, ____Cal.App.5th____ n. 5, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 391, 399 n. 5

(2023)(a recorded deed, a recorded withdrawal of notice of pending of action, and an order expunging
lis pendens).

People v. Davenport, 95 Cal.App.5th 1150 n. 4, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 167, 173 n. 4 (2023)(the legislative
history of Senate Bill 775).

Pac. Gas & Elec. v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.5th 311 n. 4, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 764, 775 n. 4 (2023)(“house
journals and floor statements are cognizable legislative history”).

L & S Framing v. Occupational Safety Bd., 93 Cal.App.5th 995, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 98, 108 (2023)(the
better practice would have been for the employer to file a request for judicial notice; nevertheless, on
its own motion the court could take judicial notice of decisions of the California Occupational Safety and
Health Appeals Board).

Cvejic v. Skyview Capital, LLC, 92 Cal.App.5th 1073, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 891, 895-96 (2023)(the court took
notice of certain arbitration rules).

Shah v. Dept. of Human Resources, 92 Cal.App.5th 590 n. 3, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 523, 524 n. 3 (2023)
(judicial notice of legislative history, including the enactment and amendment dates of pertinent
statutes).

Nationwide Insurance Co. of Am. v. Tipton, 91 Cal.App.5th 1355 n. 2, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 881, 882 n. 2
(2023)(the defendant did not file an opposition to the judicial notice request but nevertheless attempted
to argue against the request; “Such a late opposition is not allowed. See Cal.Rules of Court, rule 8.5(a)
(3), (c) [‘any opposition’ to a written motion filed in a reviewing court must be served and filed with 15
days after the motion is file,’ and ‘failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting
of the motion’”; “on our own motion, we take judicial notice of our prior opinion”).
 North American Title Co. v. Superior Court of Fresno County, 91 Cal.App.5t 948 n. 5, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d
769, 784 n. 5 (2023)(in a writ proceeding, the court took judicial notice of records filed in the superior
court action).

Travis v. Brand, 91 Cal.App.5th 996, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 747, 761 (2023)(judicial notice of the transcript of
an oral argument before the Supreme Court).

Randy’s Trucking v. Superior Court of Kern, 91 Cal.App.5th 818 n. 15, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 645, 664-65 n. 15
(2023)(“Published decisions of other states are citable authority without the need for judicial notice”).

Kennedy Comm’n v. City of Huntington Beach, 91 Cal.App.5th 436 n. 4, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 477 n. 4
(2023)(the court declined to judicially notice documents that were not before the trial judge).

Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of the University of California, 91 Cal.App.5th 872 n. 2, 308
Cal.Rptr.3d 444, 448 n. 4 (2023)(the court judicially noticed both a draft environmental impact report
(EIR) and the final EIR for a project to develop new academic, residential, and parking buildings on a
public university campus).

Glassman v. SAFECO Ins. Co. of America, 90 Cal.App.5th 1281, 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 863, 882 (2023)(“even if
a reviewing court takes judicial notice of documents, it is not for the truth of matters asserted therein”).

Naranjo v. Doctors Med. Center of Modesto, 90 Cal.App.5th 1193, 907 Cal.Rptr.3d 840, 850-51 (2023)
(judicial notice of a medical center’s list of outpatient procedures filed with a state agency and the
center’s schedule of charges filed with a state agency).

State v. JPMorgan Chase & Company, 90 Cal.App.5th 1119 n. 7, 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 750, 763-64 (2023)(the
court refused to take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of an article from a national trade
newspaper covering the municipal bond industry; “reviewing courts generally do not take judicial notice
of evidence not presented to the trial court absent exceptional circumstances”).

K.R. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 89 Cal.App.5th 1193, 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 50, 54-56 n. 1
(2023)(judicial notice of a juvenile court’s ruling that a juvenile was competent to stand trial and of a
local superior court protocol on juvenile competency hearings).

GRFCO, Inc. v. Superior Court of Riverside, 89 Cal.App.5th 1295, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 414, 426 (2023)(an
order by the Labor Commissioner debarring contracts for a three-year period).

Hamilton and High v. City of Palo Alto, 89 Cal.App.5th 528 n. 4, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 154, 170 n. 4 (2023)
(two committee reports comprising legislative history).
#500

People v. Amos, 2023 WL 6472028, 2023 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 5914 (Cal.App. Oct. 5, 2023)(when the
jury has to decide whether the accused committed an act proffered under § 1108, the jury uses the
preponderance standard).

Finley v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 907 (2023)(the Racial Justice Act prescribes
the threshold of a prima facie case for holding a hearing, which is lower than the preponderance
standard required to establish an actual violation of the Act).

Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds, 92 Cal.App.5th 351, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 461, 475 (2023)(“a
party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon”).
#502

Yedinak v. Superior Court of Riverside, 92 Cal.App.5th 876, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 72, 79 (2023)(the fact that
an arrestee is a dangerous person must be proven to order pretrial detention under California’s violent
felony exception; that fact must be established by clear and convincing evidence).
#600

Sleep E-Z, LLC v. Lopez, 88 Cal.App.5th Supp. 18, 305 Cal.Rptr.3d 433, 438 (Cal.Super.A.D. 1023)
(quoting the statute).
#601

Pac. Gas & Elec. v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.5th 311, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 764, 775-76 (2023)(“’Unless
deemed by the law to be conclusive, a presumption is rebutted by the existence of contrary evidence,
not by the absence of supporting evidence’”).
#604

Pac. Gas & Elec. v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.5th 311, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 764, 773-74 (2023)(“’[T]he
burden of proof and the burden of producing evidence initially coincide. So it may fairly be said a
presumption affecting the burden of proof initially places on the same party the burden of producing
evidence. A presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence requires the ultimate fact to be
found from proof of the predicate facts in the absence of other evidence. If contrary evidence is
introduced, then the presumption has no further effect and the matter must be determined on the
evidence presented. In fact, as the trial or hearing progresses in such a situation, the burden of
producing evidence may shift between the parties as further evidence is introduced, while the burden of
proof remains with the party on which it is placed by law. The ultimate burden of proof is never
altered’”).
#606

Pac. Gas & Elec. v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.5th 311, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 764, 773-74 (2023)(“’[T]he
burden of proof and the burden of producing evidence initially coincide. So it may fairly be said a
presumption affecting the burden of proof initially places on the same party the burden of producing
evidence. [A]s the trial or hearing progresses . . . , the burden of producing evidence may shift . . . , while
the burden of proof remains with the party on which it is placed by law. The ultimate burden of proof is
never altered’”; Ed: This language is potentially misleading. A presumption under this section can shift
the ultimate burden of proof from one party to the other).
#620

Estate of Martino, ____Cal.App.5th____, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 630, 643-44 (2023)(discussing the Family
Code section creating a conclusive presumption of paternity).
#664

Phillips v. Gordon, ___Cal.App.5th___, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 709 (2023)(by virtue of this statute, it is
presumed that a forensic laboratory technician testing a sample for blood alcohol concentration has
complied with governing regulations; however, the presumption is rebuttable; when the presumption is
rebutted, the government must shoulder the burden of proving that despite the violation the BAC test
report was reliable; here the presumption was rebutted because the driver presented evidence that the
technician drew the blood without proper supervision; however, the government nevertheless
established the foundational reliability of the test).

Victor Valley High Sch. v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.5th 940, 305 Cal.Rptr.3d 442 (2023)(the party
against whom the presumptions operates has the burden of proof as to the nonexistence of the
presumed fact).
#730

Peterson v. Thompson, 89 Cal.App.5th 988, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 516 (2023)(the court has power to appoint
a child custody evaluator to report on the best interest of the child to assist the court; when it makes
such an appointment, the trial court must consider: (1) whether an evaluator should receive any
compensation, (2) a reasonable amount of compensation, and (3) which party or parties will bear the
cost; in allocating the expenses, the court must consider a party’s ability to pay).
#780

People v. Castaneda-Prado, 94 Cal.App.5th 1260, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 843 (2023)(the defense was entitled
to show that one of the alleged child sex abuse victims believed that by accusing the defendant of sexual
abuse, she was helping her mother obtain a U visa, a type of visa that can provide legal status for victims
of certain crimes who assist in the investigation; where a trial judge has effectively rendered cross-
examination for bias a futility, the judge analyzing the alleged Confrontation Clause violation proceeds to
another step in analysis; in that step, the judge determines whether a reasonable jury might have
received a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility if the proposed line of cross-
examination had been permitted).
#783

Doe v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty., 15 Cal.5th 40, 532 P.3d 1065, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (2023)(in
civil cases, the statute allows the admission of specific instances of a plaintiff’s sexual conduct to
challenge the plaintiff’s credibility whenever the plaintiff’s credibility as a witness is at issue such aswhen
memory or accuracy is disputed; such evidence may be admissible for this purpose even when it is
inadmissible as substantive evidence; the judge should conduct a hearing on such evidence out of the
jury’s presence; moreover, in light of the legislature’s special statements when it enacted the rape shield
laws, in applying § 352 to such evidence, the trial judge should consider not only prejudice to the
party the evidence is offered against; the judge should also weigh whether the process is being
used to harass or intimidate the complainant or to unduly invade his or her privacy).
#800

People v. Portillo, 91 Cal.App.5th 577 n. 16, 308 Cal.Rtpr.3d 500, 512 n. 16 (2023)(“an owner’s
testimony is admissible as evidence of the value of an item. [An] owner of stolen goods was qualified to
testify to value of property for purposes of proving grand theft”).
#801

Bonds v. Superior Court of San Diego County, ___Cal.App.5th____, 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 226 (2024)(statistical
studies of a city police department’s practices were admissible to prove a violation of Racial Justice Act,
Cal. Penal Code § 745).

In re Marriage of Lietz, ___Cal.App.5th____, 318 Cal.Rptr.3d 63 (2024)(when an expert relates to the

jury case-specific out-of-court statements and treats their content as true, the statements are hearsay;
the appraiser’s testimony that the county property records indicated that the lot where the marital
home was 10,400 square feet, not 9,000 square feet, related to a case-specific fact, and the testimony
amounted to inadmissible hearsay absent a public record independently proving the fact).

Garner v. BNSF Railway Company, 98 Cal.App.5th 660, 316 Cal.Rptr.3d 862 (2024)(to establish that
diesel exhaust and its constituents can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, an expert need not be able to
point to existing studies reaching that conclusion on general causation instead, the expert may rely on
an analysis of all-cancer epidemiological studies to establish the causal relationship; moreover, general
causation experts are not required to identify the exact dose of diesel exhaust at which exposure
becomes toxic).

People v. Ramirez, _____Cal.App.5th____, 316 Cal.Rptr.3d 520, 559-61 (2023)(the expert testified to
the equivalent of child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSSAS) evidence; the trial judge
properly instructed the jury that they could consider it for whatever light it shed on the victim’s
credibility, but not for the improper purpose of proving that the defendant sexually abused the minor
victim).

People v. Curiel, ___Cal.5th____, ____P.3d____, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 495 (2023)(in general terms an expert
may testify to the nature of the bases of his or her opinion, including conversations with others, lectures,
and the study of learned treatises; an expert may rely on hearsay in forming an opinion; however, the
expert may not testify to particular case-specific statements that serve as a basis unless they fall within a
hearsay exception).

Brancati v. Cachuma Village, LLC, ___Cal.App.5th____, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 (2023)(the judge does not
pass on the persuasiveness of the proffered expert testimony or resolve scientific controversies; a
medical doctor may arrive at a diagnosis through a process of elimination, namely, differential diagnosis;
the doctor may rely on published scientific studies showing odds ratios of 2.0 or more; the expert could
testify that the medical cause of the tenant’s injuries was exposure to mold).

People v. Amos, 2023 WL 6472028, 2023 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 5914 (Cal.App. Oct. 5, 2023)(even an
expert on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) may not “’present predictive
conclusions, such as alleged child abuse victims should be believed or abused children given inconsistent
accounts and are credible nonetheless’”; “’[s]uch predictive conclusions go beyond the scope of CSAAS
evidence’”; while “’a slight passing reference by the expert’” to statistics about false allegations may not
be prejudicial,” the jury may not be “’bombarded’” with “’a mountain of prejudicial statistical data’”).

Finley v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 907 (2023)(in deciding whether an
accused has made a prima facie showing of the Racial Justice Act, a judge should not accept the truth of
expert declarations if the evidence is conclusory and lacks explanation; the judge must perform a
gatekeeping function to exclude expert opinions that are speculative and unsupported—a role similar to
the role a judge plays at trial when a litigant presents expert evidence).

People v. J. G.A., 93 Cal.App.5th 1126, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 525, 536 (2023)(“Experts may . . . rely ‘on
hearsay in forming an opinion, and may tell the [factfinder] in general terms that [they] did so’”).

Stack v. City of Lemoore, 91 Cal.App.5th 102, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 45, 58 (2023)(the court cited prior
authority excluding an opinion “that the defect [in a sidewalk] was dangerous due to its depth. This sort
of intrinsic danger would indeed be readily ascertainable by law persons on their own; whereas, the
impact of a condition further down the road might require expert explanation”; here the expert
proposed providing an “explanation of the second defect’s impact on a person jogging over the first
defect”).

Onglyza Product Cases, 90 Cal.App.5th 776, 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 480 (2023)(to begin with, a cardiologist’s
general causation opinion was inadmissible; the opinion was based on only one randomized, controlled
study and an analysis involving nine factors, the study’s own authors rejected the notion that that study
alone established a causal link, the expert agreed that the study’s finding of increased risk of heart
failure needed to replicated to establish causation, there were deficiencies in the expert’s application of
six of the factors, and the expert failed to weigh the factors together; moreover, a biostatistician’s
opinion of an association based on one randomized controlled study and a meta-analysis of the data was
insufficient to raise a triable issue regarding general causation and preclude summary judgment for the
defense; the biostatistician did not provide an opinion about causation and stated that he was
unqualified to offer a causation opinion).
#805

Fischl v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., 94 Cal.App.5th 108, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 818 (2023)(“’expert testimony is
incompetent on the question . . . whether [a legal] duty exists because this is a question of law for the
court alone’ to decide”).

Stack v. City of Lemoore, 91 Cal.App.5th 102, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 45, 57-58 (2023)(the expert’s assistance to
the jury “simply cannot come in the form of a pure legal conclusion . . . .” however, “Dr. Walsh did not
opine that the stretch of sidewalk at issue was a dangerous condition of public property, which we would
. . . discard as an opinion offering an ultimate legal conclusion . . . .”).
#948

People v. Brooks, ___Cal.App.5th___, 317 Cal.Rpter.3d 780 (2024)(under some circumstances, counsel
may assert the privilege on behalf of his or her client; in most cases, a holder witness must take the
stand to claim the privilege for a specific question; however, in this case the victim adequately asserted
the privilege without doing so; the judger had enough information to assess what the alleged victim had
done to the defendant, the victim’s counsel stated that the victim would assert the privilege as to any
line of questioning about her potentially assaultive behavior on the defendant, the judge found that it
did not “get much more incriminatory” than admitting to hitting another person with an ashtray, and the
government refused to grant the victim immunity).
# 980

Militello v. VFARM 1509, 89 Cal.App.5th 602, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 (2023)(spousal privileges may be
asserted to bar anyone, including eavesdroppers; although the spouse used company email, the emails
were confidential, since there was no evidence of a company monitoring policy or a prohibition of
personal use of the email account; moreover, there was no that the communications were intended to
enable or aid a fraud).
#998

Whitehair v. Superior Court of San Diego, 93 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 (Cal.Super.A.D.
2023)(a tier one sex offender who was not on probation sought to terminate their inclusion in the sex
offender registry; by doing so, the offender does not place his or her mental or emotional condition at
issue; the offender has not triggered the patient-litigant exception because he is not the first to tender
the issue in litigation; if the prosecution argues that continued registration will promote the community
safety, the offender may join the issue without waiving the privilege).
#1014

Whitehair v. Superior Court of San Diego, 93 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 595 (Cal.Super.A.D.
2023)(a tier one sex offender who was not on probation sought to terminate their inclusion in the sex
offender registry; by doing so, the offender did not place his overall mental or emotional condition at
issue; even if the government argues that continued registration would promote community safety, the
offender may join the issue without triggering the patient-litigant exception; the offender was not the
first to tender the issue of their condition).
#1043

People v. Gobert, 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 (2023)(an accused seeking discovery of
confidential law enforcement personnel records must file a motion supported by an affidavit showing
good cause; to show good cause, the accused must establish the materiality of the subject matter and a
reasonable belief that the agency has that type of information; if the accused establishes good cause,
the trial judge must conduct an in camera hearing at which the records custodian brings to court all
documents that are potentially relevant; the decisionmaker is the judge, not the custodian; the judge
must examine the produced documents themselves and not rely on the custodian’s assessment of
discoverability; the judge must also ask the custodian which types of documents he or she has not
produced).
#1070

Bakersfield Californian v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.5th 1228, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 51 (2023)(a defendant
accused of murder sought a reporter’s notes of an interview with the accused’s codefendant; the
newspaper moved to quash the subpoena; to invoke the statute, the newspaper must show that (1) the
information was obtained during the newsgathering process and (2) the information remains
unpublished; the newspaper need not show that the information was obtained in confidence; once the
newspaper does so, the accused may argue that the Constitution trumps the statute because the
information is essential to the accused obtaining a fair trial; at that point, the judge conducts a
discretionary balancing analysis;

--on the other hand, the judge considers whether the information will materially assist the defense. The
information need not lead to exoneration. The information can establish an imperfect defense, a lesser
included offense, a lesser related-offense, or a lesser degree of the crime or serve to impeach a
prosecution witness;

--on the other hand, the judge weighs (1) whether the information was confidential or sensitive; (2)
whether the interests served by the statute will be thwarted by disclosure; (3) the importance of the
information to the defense; and (4) whether there is an alternative source for the information. With
respect to (1), nonconfidential or nonsensitive information is entitled to less weight in the constitutional
analysis. With respect to (2), disclosure was unlikely to have a major impact on the future ability to
gather news. The codefendant did not place any conditions on the interview, there was no
understanding that the interview was “off the record,” and interviewees are generally aware that
reporters can sometimes be compelled to testify. With respect to (3), the accused was facing life in
prison without parole (LWOP), and the information could impeach the codefendant on the critical issue
of the identity of the shooter. With respect to (4), there was no recording of the interview, and the
transcript of the codefendant’s preliminary hearing testimony was not an adequate substitute. If the
court determines that the accused has made a colorable showing of need for the information, the judge
must receive the newsperson’s testimony in camera in order to conduct the balancing analysis).
#1101

Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., 97 Cal.App.5th 822 n. 12, 315 Cal.Rptr.3d 728 n. 12 (2023)
(the court applies the statute in a civil action; the court states that testimony relating to prior bad acts is
inherently prejudicial and should be admitted only if it is “substantial” probative value; if the proponent
relies on the plan or common design theory, it is not enough to show mere similarity in results; the
proponent must do more than prove “’a series of similar spontaneous acts’”; rather, the proponent must
establish “’such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as
caused by a general plan of which they are individual manifestations’”).

People v. Zemek, 92 Cal.App.5th 958, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 812, 844-46 (2023)(to be admissible to prove
intent, an uncharged act must be sufficiently similar to support the inference that the defendant
probably harbored the same intent in each instance; a high degree of similarity is needed to show
identity, a lesser degree of similarity is needed to show the existence of a common plan, and the least
degree is needed to intent; there is no requirement that the acts be identical to the charged crime; in
the instant case, two other thefts were admissible to show intent to defraud; in each instance, the
defendant met the victims through quasi-medical procedures, undertook a caregiving function for them,
and then used her caregiver status to steal from them).

People v. Saucedo, 90 Cal.App.5th 505, 307 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 306-07 (2023)(in a prosecution for second
degree murder based on implied malice, the court excluded evidence of the defendant’s prior traffic
infractions; the prior incidents did not involve driving as dangerous as the alleged conduct that killed
victims; there was no evidence that the prior incidents injured or nearly injured anyone, that the
defendant suffered any serious consequences for any of the prior traffic violations, or that he was ever
required to attend any educational programs about the dangers of reckless driving or driving under the
influence).
#1102

People v. Ortiz, ___Cal.App.5th___, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 732, 766 (2023)(“’When a defense witness gives
character testimony, the prosecutor may inquire of the witness whether he or she has heard of acts or
conduct by the defendant inconsistent with that testimony, so long as the prosecutor has a good faith
belief that such acts or conduct actually took place’”; in this sex offense prosecution, the person initially
appeared as a defense character witness; however, after testifying, she changed her opinion; it was
permissible for the prosecution to recall her and question her about the witness’s daughter’s disclosure
of sexual abuse by the accused).
#1106

Doe v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty., 15 Cal.5th 40, 532 P.3d 1065, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (2023)(in
civil cases, this statute generally prohibits admitting evidence of specific instances of sexual conduct as
substantive proof of consent or the absence of injury to the plaintiff; however, the exclusion is not
categorical, and the evidence may sometimes be admitted for impeachment; in ruling on the
admissibility of such evidence, the judge should conduct a hearing outside the presence of the jury;
moreover, in applying § 352 to such evidence, the judge should not only consider prejudice to the party
the evidence is offered against; given the special concern the legislature voiced when it enacted the
rape shield provisions, the judge should also weigh whether the evidence would harass or intimidate the
complainant or unduly invade the complainant’s right to privacy).
#1108

People v. Ramirez, ___Cal.App.5th____, 316 Cal.Rptr.3d 520, 561 (2023)(“Evidence Code section
1108’s reference to ‘the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses’ permits the jury
to consider evidence of a defendant’s charged sexual offenses, in addition to evidence of uncharged
sexual offenses, to demonstrate his or her propensity to commit the other charged sexual offenses”).

People v. Amos, 2023 WL 6472028, 2023 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 5914 (Cal.App. Oct. 5, 2023)(when this
statute applied, the jury may treat the evidence as proof that the accused is “disposed or inclined to
commit sexual offenses”).
#1109

People v. Robinson, 99 Cal.App.5th 1345, ___Cal.Rptr.3d__ (2024)(the prosecution may use a certified
copy of the record of a misdemeanor conviction to prove the defendant’s commission of act falling under
this statute; “’The principal factor affecting the probative value of an uncharged act [under this statute]
is its similarity to the charged offense’”).

People v. Gobert, 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 (2023)(this statute applies when the
charged offense is murder; however, while the statute carves out a propensity exception to the general
character prohibition, it does not function as a hearsay exception).
#1119

Perez v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 613 F.Supp.3d 1171 (N.D.Cal. 2020)(before striking paragraphs of a
complaint under this statute, the claimant must show a nexus between the statements and mediation;
the communication must not have occurred but for the mediation; if a settlement communication
coincides with other non-settlement communications such as discovery or general litigation concerns,
the statute is inapplicable; on the one hand, the court struck a writing prepared by the insured for the
purposes of mediation with the consumer; on the other hand, the court refused to strike paragraphs
that merely referred to the general details of the mediation and that the insured walked out without
making a settlement offer; that information was not a statement, writing, or communication subject to
the statute; absence of an offer, prior to mediation, is not mediation privileged).
#1200

People v. Davenport, 95 Cal.App.5th 1150, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 167, 173 (2023)(“some statutory hearsay
exceptions may be found outside the Evidence Code”).

Kourounian v. Cal. Dept’ of Tax & Fee Admin., 91 Cal.App.5th 1100, 309 Cal.Rtpr.3d 103, 115-17 (2023)
(if testimony involves multiple hearsay levels, the testimony may not be admitted unless there is an
exception for each level; the narrative attached to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EE0C)
charges constituted inadmissible hearsay).

People v. Portillo, 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 500, 509-12, 515 (2023)(to be admissible as
nonhearsay, a statement must be relevant independent of the truth of the matters it asserts and
regardless of whether the jury believes the matters asserted to be true; price listings on a retailer’s
website and price tags in a brick-and-mortar store were admissible nonhearsay circumstantial evidence
of the value of adjustable dumbbells; they showed the price at which willing sellers and willing buyers
would consummate transactions in the marketplace; in addition, verbal acts such as lease extensions
and sales agreements are not hearsay).

People v. Gobert, 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 306 Cal.Rptr.3d 228 (2023)(even if the testimony was probative
nonhearsay of the victim’s sister’s state of mind, her state of mind was irrelevant).
#1202

People v. Bingham, 95 Cal.App.5th 1072, 314 Cal.Rptr.3d 127 (2023)(evidence of a nontestifying

victim’s statements to the prosecution recanting the claims she made in a 911 call and her prior
convictions were admissible to impeach the victim’s credibility).
#1240

People v. Gray, 15 Cal.5th 152, 533 P.3d 519, 311 Cal.Rptr.3d 611 (2023)(at a probation revocation
proceeding, the court admitted the victim’s statements to the police; the prosecution argued that the
statements qualified as excited utterances; in addition, the prosecution contended that the statements
could be admitted at a probation revocation proceeding even if they were testimonial; the court
rejected the prosecution’s contention that a showing that the statements were excited utterances
automatically and categorically satisfied the constitutional requirements applicable at probation
revocation proceedings; the court ruled that when the statement is testimonial, the trial judge should
employ a case-by-case balancing test, weighing the government’s interests against the accused’s
interests in confrontation; the judge must find “good cause” before denying the accused confrontation).
#1291

People v. Cody, 92 Cal.App.5th 87, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 26, 38-39 (2023)(in a petition for resentencing
under the Penal Code, the judge could consider witness testimony admitted at any prior hearing or trial
without any showing that the previous witnesses were unavailable at the resentencing hearing; the
Penal Code provision in question creates an exception to § 1291 for any previously admitted testimony).
#1521

Lopez v. American Medical Response West, 89 Cal.App.5th 336, 305 Cal.Rptr.3d 811 (2023)
(declarations were sufficient to establish that the EMTs were certified EMTs employed by the defendant
ambulance company; the court rejected the contention that the second evidence rule requires the
ambulance company to produce the actual EMT certificates).