California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Zamora, 134 Cal.Rptr. 784, 18 Cal.3d 538, 557 P.2d 75 (Cal. 1976):
In Leach we clarified the views set forth in People v. Saling (1972) 7 Cal.3d 844, 103 Cal.Rptr. 698, 500 P.2d 610; 5 wherein we interpreted the scope of Evidence Code section 1223, California's codification of the coconspirator's exception to the hearsay rule. The primary issue considered in Leach and Saling was the termination point of a conspiracy when alalyzed in light of policy considerations underlying the rule of evidence there involved. We held that under certain limited circumstances declarations of coconspirators uttered after the attainment or abandonment of the principal objective of a conspiracy may properly be admitted under the coconspirator's exception to the hearsay rule. The contention that we should now analogize to Leach and Saling in order to resolve the instant case bespeaks a misunderstanding of the principles expressed in those cases and is but one more example of the confusion and imprecision which continues to plague and further muddy the already far too murky waters of conspiracy law. As hereinafter appears, resolution of the statute of limitations issue in the present case turns on a different set of considerations from those which were determinative of the results reached in Leach and Saling.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.