How have the courts interpreted the "best evidence" rule?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Atkins, 210 Cal.App.3d 47, 258 Cal.Rptr. 113 (Cal. App. 1989):

Preliminarily, we note that in admitting the documents, the trial court made no reference to the best evidence rule, although defense counsel's objection may reasonably be construed to raise such issue. The remarks of the trial court in passing on the admissibility of evidence do not affect the validity of its determination to admit the evidence, for in measuring the correctness of a trial court's rulings we look to what the trial court did, not to what it said. (People v. Garrett (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 535, 540, 104 Cal.Rptr. 829.) We thus address appellant's contentions.

Other Questions


How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted the rules of evidence in cases dealing with self-confessed statements made outside of court? (California, United States of America)
How does the Court of Appeal review a trial court's ruling to admit evidence over defendant's objection based on evidence section 352? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the prosecutor's statement that the jury's verdict must be based on the evidence presented in court? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 352 of the California Evidence Code for excluding prejudicial evidence in a sexual assault case? (California, United States of America)
How have courts reviewed a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the Court have authority to exclude evidence where a defendant has been found to be contrary to the evidence code under section 352 of the California Evidence Code? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the hearsay rule in the context of impeachment evidence? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Is a trial court ruling that resolves conflicts in the evidence entitled to greater deference from a reviewing court than a similar finding in a similar case? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.