People v. Pic'l

California Court of Appeal · 1981 · Evidence

114 Cal. App. 3d 824 (1981)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencehearsayadoptive admissioncoconspirator exceptionaccomplice corroborationPenal Code section 1111Evidence Code section 1221Evidence Code section 1223

Facts

Kerhulas's dragster, trailer, truck, and parts were stolen. Martin was arrested while trying to sell a specially built stolen differential, and later Kerhulas was contacted by Martin, anonymous callers, and then Pic'l about returning the stolen property in exchange for money and a nonprosecution agreement. At trial, Yvonne Stephens testified to statements by Oxenham, made in Martin's presence and during the scheme, implicating Martin and connecting Pic'l and Oxenham to the return-for-payment plan; Kerhulas testified to similar phone statements. The prosecution also introduced one statement by Oxenham made after Pic'l's arrest: "Pic'l got busted. Kerhulas screwed us."

Issue

Whether the trial court properly admitted various out-of-court statements under the adoptive-admission and coconspirator exceptions to the hearsay rule, whether accomplice-corroboration rules applied to nonwitness declarants' hearsay statements, and whether a post-arrest statement by a coconspirator was admissible against Pic'l.

Rule

A hearsay statement is admissible as an adoptive admission under Evidence Code section 1221 if there is evidence sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find that the party knew the content of the statement and, by words or conduct including silence where denial would be expected, manifested adoption of or belief in its truth. A hearsay statement is admissible under Evidence Code section 1223 if made by a declarant while participating in a conspiracy, in furtherance of its objectives, and before or during the time the party against whom it is offered was participating, supported by independent evidence sufficient to sustain those preliminary facts. Penal Code section 1111's accomplice-corroboration requirement applies to accomplice testimony, not to hearsay statements of nonwitness declarants. Once a conspiracy has terminated, including by arrest, later statements by a former coconspirator are not admissible under the coconspirator exception.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a barbecue in Sacramento, Nolan Reed told Ava Kim, while Evan Torres stood two feet away, "Evan and I took the contractor's compressor from the job site last night." Evan said nothing and kept loading tools into his truck. On cross-examination, Ava conceded she was nervous that night and was "not completely sure" whether Evan was within earshot for the entire remark.

Is Nolan's statement admissible against Evan as an adoptive admission?

Explanation. A statement may come in as an adoptive admission if there is evidence sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find the party knew the content of the statement and, by words or conduct including silence where denial would be expected, adopted or believed it true. A conflict in the foundational evidence does not bar admissibility; under the majority's reasoning, the trial judge need not personally find the facts by a preponderance, only that a reasonable trier could so find.