What is the test for admissible statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Thompson, 1 Cal.5th 1043, 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 667, 384 P.3d 693 (Cal. 2016):
uttered during an ongoing conspiracy. "In order for a declaration to be admissible under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent must proffer sufficient evidence to allow the trier of fact to determine that the conspiracy exists by a preponderance of the evidence. A prima facie showing of a conspiracy for the purposes of admissibility of a coconspirator's statement under Evidence Code section 1223 simply means that a reasonable jury could find it more likely than not that the conspiracy existed at the time the statement was made." (People v. Herrera (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 46, 63, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 911.) Applying this test, we conclude the prosecution provided sufficient evidence, independent of the statements themselves, from which the trial court could have found a prima facie case that the statements were uttered by coconspirators
[384 P.3d 744]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
