Legal Opinion
People v. Michael G.
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 5, 1993No. B069732PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NOTT, J.
This case involves the question of whether a product label may be introduced as an exception to the hearsay rule. Under the facts presented, our answer is yes.
Factual and Procedural History
Michael G. appeals from the order declaring him to be a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) by reason of his possession of a substance containing toluene with the intent to inhale for the purpose of intoxication (Pen. Code, § 381, subd. (a)). He contends on appeal: “I. The list of ingredients on a product label is pure hearsay without exception and therefore inadmissible to prove…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Davis v. Dennis B.California Supreme Court · 1976
- People v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- DeLeon v. Commercial Manufacturing & Supply Co.California Court of Appeal · 1983
- People v. SilvaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- People v. T.D.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1983
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- DiCola v. White Brothers Performance Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- State v. HeuserSupreme Court of Iowa · 2003
- People v. SanganiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- State v. ReaySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. Mooring, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.