§8. Exception—Coconspirator's admission
An out-of-court statement made by a coconspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy is admissible against another coconspirator as an exception to the hearsay rule.
§8.1. Overview. The statement of a coconspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy is admitted as if it were an admission by the defendant himself on the rationale that the statement is one of the acts of the conspiracy for which the defendant (as a coconspirator himself) is legally responsible. See Evid. C. §1223; 7 Cal. Law Revision Comm'n Rep. (1965) p. 1224. In other words, the defendant is deemed to have authorized his coconspirators to make statements in furtherance of the conspiracy, and thus he cannot object to the use of those statements against himself. See Evid. C. §1223; 7 Cal. Law Revision Comm'n Rep. (1965) p. 1224.
Federal Comparison The FREs treat a statement made by the party's coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy as admissible nonhearsay rather than a hearsay exception. FRE 801(d)(2)(E).
§8.2. Requirements for exception. For a coconspirator's admission to be admissible as a hearsay exception, the following criteria must be met:
1. Existence of conspiracy. There must be evidence independent from the out-of-court statement that proves the existence of the conspiracy. People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 924; People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 139; see Evid. C. §1223(c); see also People v. Gann (4th Dist.2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 994, 1005 (discussing elements of conspiracy). In other words, existence of the conspiracy must be proved, either directly or circumstantially, by evidence independent from the statement itself. See People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1111; People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 482. Circumstantial evidence includes the conduct, activities, and relationships between the conspirators before and during the conspiracy. See People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 562; Munoz v. Superior Ct. (1st Dist.2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 774, 780. The independent evidence need only establish prima facie existence of the conspiracy for the admission of a statement under Evid. C. §1223. Cowan, 50 Cal.4th at 482; People v. Steccone (1950) 36 Cal.2d 234, 238; see Thompson, 1 Cal.5th at 1111 (existence of conspiracy is established prima facie when reasonable jurors could find existence more likely than not). The court can require proof of the conspiracy to be established before the out-of-court statement is admitted (preliminary fact under Evid. C. §403), or it can admit the statement subject to later proof of the conspiracy. People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 895; see Evid. C. §1223(c); People v. Vega-Robles (1st Dist.2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 382, 432-33. See "Fact determinations under Evid. C. §403," ch. 7, §3.1.
...Federal Comparison While
