California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Saez, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 72, 237 Cal.App.4th 1177 (Cal. App. 2015):
17 Because we conclude that the statements were not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, we do not decide whether they were admissible on any other basis, including as adoptive admissions. (See People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 179180 [51 Cal.Rptr.3d 718, 146 P.3d 1259] (Trujillo ) [defendant's statements in postconviction probation report could not be considered an adoptive admission that conviction was based on use of knife, especially since knife allegation was dismissed as part of plea deal]; People v. Thoma (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1103 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 855] [testimony at preliminary hearing about nurse's statement describing victim's injuries not admissible as adoptive admission for purpose of proving that defendant had caused great bodily injury].)
17 Because we conclude that the statements were not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, we do not decide whether they were admissible on any other basis, including as adoptive admissions. (See People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 179180 [51 Cal.Rptr.3d 718, 146 P.3d 1259] (Trujillo ) [defendant's statements in postconviction probation report could not be considered an adoptive admission that conviction was based on use of knife, especially since knife allegation was dismissed as part of plea deal]; People v. Thoma (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1103 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 855] [testimony at preliminary hearing about nurse's statement describing victim's injuries not admissible as adoptive admission for purpose of proving that defendant had caused great bodily injury].)
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.