Section § 1150

Explanation

This law explains what evidence can and can't be considered when questioning if a jury's verdict is valid. It allows evidence about what was said, done, or happened inside or outside the jury room that might have improperly influenced the verdict. However, it prohibits evidence that looks into how this affected a juror's decision-making or mental processes. It also clarifies that nothing in this section changes the rules about a juror's ability to testify regarding impeaching or supporting a verdict.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1150(a) Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence may be received as to statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly. No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1150(b) Nothing in this code affects the law relating to the competence of a juror to give evidence to impeach or support a verdict.

Section § 1151

Explanation

This law says that if a person or company takes steps to fix something after an accident or event happens, you can't use that fact in court to argue that they were negligent or at fault for the accident. In simple terms, fixing something after the fact doesn't automatically mean they were guilty of causing the issue.

When, after the occurrence of an event, remedial or precautionary measures are taken, which, if taken previously, would have tended to make the event less likely to occur, evidence of such subsequent measures is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event.

Section § 1152

Explanation

This law explains that if someone offers or promises money or services to settle a claim, that offer cannot be used as evidence to prove they are at fault for any loss or damage. However, if such evidence is allowed in a case about bad faith dealings or specific insurance code violations, then related offers can also be used for the same purpose. Offers to settle cannot be used in new trials, appeals, or proceedings about adjusting compensation unless it's a case for bad faith or insurance violations. The law doesn’t affect evidence showing partial claim satisfaction or a debtor's payment as proof of claim validity or new debt duties.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1152(a) Evidence that a person has, in compromise or from humanitarian motives, furnished or offered or promised to furnish money or any other thing, act, or service to another who has sustained or will sustain or claims that he or she has sustained or will sustain loss or damage, as well as any conduct or statements made in negotiation thereof, is inadmissible to prove his or her liability for the loss or damage or any part of it.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1152(b) In the event that evidence of an offer to compromise is admitted in an action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing or violation of subdivision (h) of Section 790.03 of the Insurance Code, then at the request of the party against whom the evidence is admitted, or at the request of the party who made the offer to compromise that was admitted, evidence relating to any other offer or counteroffer to compromise the same or substantially the same claimed loss or damage shall also be admissible for the same purpose as the initial evidence regarding settlement. Other than as may be admitted in an action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing or violation of subdivision (h) of Section 790.03 of the Insurance Code, evidence of settlement offers shall not be admitted in a motion for a new trial, in any proceeding involving an additur or remittitur, or on appeal.
(c)CA Evidence Code § 1152(c) This section does not affect the admissibility of evidence of any of the following:
(1)CA Evidence Code § 1152(c)(1) Partial satisfaction of an asserted claim or demand without questioning its validity when such evidence is offered to prove the validity of the claim.
(2)CA Evidence Code § 1152(c)(2) A debtor’s payment or promise to pay all or a part of his or her preexisting debt when such evidence is offered to prove the creation of a new duty on his or her part or a revival of his or her preexisting duty.

Section § 1153

Explanation

If someone in a criminal case makes a guilty plea or offers to plead guilty but later changes their mind, this cannot be used as evidence against them in court or any other legal proceedings, including those before government bodies or panels.

Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or of an offer to plead guilty to the crime charged or to any other crime, made by the defendant in a criminal action is inadmissible in any action or in any proceeding of any nature, including proceedings before agencies, commissions, boards, and tribunals.

Section § 1153.5

Explanation

This law states that if someone makes an offer to settle a criminal case through civil means, or if they admit to something while making or negotiating that offer, that information can't be used as evidence in any court action. The idea is to encourage settlements without the fear of those discussions being used against someone later in court.

Evidence of an offer for civil resolution of a criminal matter pursuant to the provisions of Section 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or admissions made in the course of or negotiations for the offer shall not be admissible in any action.

Section § 1154

Explanation

This law prevents any evidence showing that someone has accepted, offered, or promised money or anything else of value to resolve a claim from being used in court to argue that the claim is not valid.

Evidence that a person has accepted or offered or promised to accept a sum of money or any other thing, act, or service in satisfaction of a claim, as well as any conduct or statements made in negotiation thereof, is inadmissible to prove the invalidity of the claim or any part of it.

Section § 1155

Explanation

This law states that if someone is insured for damages when harm occurred to someone else, that insurance information cannot be used in court to prove that the insured person was negligent or did something wrong.

Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.

Section § 1156

Explanation

Hospitals in California can have committees that do research to lower illness and death rates. These committees can gather information and make suggestions. Generally, the notes and records from these research efforts can't be used as evidence in court or before any government body, except for specific situations outlined below.

Information about a patient given to these committees can be discovered during legal discovery processes, but it does not lose its protected status. However, a patient's identity remains private unless they agree to reveal it.

This rule does not change the ability to use original medical records as evidence, and it does not stop relevant evidence from being used in criminal cases.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1156(a) In-hospital medical or medical-dental staff committees of a licensed hospital may engage in research and medical or dental study for the purpose of reducing morbidity or mortality, and may make findings and recommendations relating to such purpose. Except as provided in subdivision (b), the written records of interviews, reports, statements, or memoranda of such in-hospital medical or medical-dental staff committees relating to such medical or dental studies are subject to Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (relating to discovery proceedings) but, subject to subdivisions (c) and (d), shall not be admitted as evidence in any action or before any administrative body, agency, or person.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1156(b) The disclosure, with or without the consent of the patient, of information concerning him to such in-hospital medical or medical-dental staff committee does not make unprivileged any information that would otherwise be privileged under Section 994 or 1014; but, notwithstanding Sections 994 and 1014, such information is subject to discovery under subdivision (a) except that the identity of any patient may not be discovered under subdivision (a) unless the patient consents to such disclosure.
(c)CA Evidence Code § 1156(c) This section does not affect the admissibility in evidence of the original medical or dental records of any patient.
(d)CA Evidence Code § 1156(d) This section does not exclude evidence which is relevant evidence in a criminal action.

Section § 1156.1

Explanation

This law allows certain established committees to conduct research and studies to reduce disease or death rates, and they can provide their findings to the county and state. Generally, their recorded discussions and findings cannot be used as evidence in legal or administrative actions, except under specific circumstances.

It also clarifies that patient information remains protected by confidentiality laws, but such information can be discovered during legal procedures, provided it doesn't reveal patient identities without consent. However, the law ensures that the original medical records of a patient remain admissible in court, and evidence relevant to criminal cases is not excluded.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1156.1(a) A committee established in compliance with Sections 4070 and 5624 of the Welfare and Institutions Code may engage in research and medical or psychiatric study for the purpose of reducing morbidity or mortality, and may make findings and recommendations to the county and state relating to such purpose. Except as provided in subdivision (b), the written records of interviews, reports, statements, or memoranda of such committees relating to such medical or psychiatric studies are subject to Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure but, subject to subdivisions (c) and (d), shall not be admitted as evidence in any action or before any administrative body, agency, or person.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1156.1(b) The disclosure, with or without the consent of the patient, of information concerning him or her to such committee does not make unprivileged any information that would otherwise be privileged under Section 994 or 1014. However, notwithstanding Sections 994 and 1014, such information is subject to discovery under subdivision (a) except that the identity of any patient may not be discovered under subdivision (a) unless the patient consents to such disclosure.
(c)CA Evidence Code § 1156.1(c) This section does not affect the admissibility in evidence of the original medical or psychiatric records of any patient.
(d)CA Evidence Code § 1156.1(d) This section does not exclude evidence which is relevant evidence in a criminal action.

Section § 1156.5

Explanation

This law says that evidence of 'excited delirium' can't be used in civil court cases. People involved in a case can talk about someone's behavior, like being agitated or violent, but they can't label it as 'excited delirium.' This term isn't included in the official mental health diagnosis manual and may not have enough scientific backing to be considered a real medical condition. It refers to intense states of excitement, aggression, and seeming insensitivity to pain.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1156.5(a) Evidence that a person suffered or experienced excited delirium shall not be admitted in any civil action.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1156.5(b) A party or witness may describe the factual circumstances surrounding the case, including a person’s demeanor, conduct, and physical and mental condition at issue, including, but not limited to, a person’s state of agitation, excitability, paranoia, extreme aggression, physical violence, and apparent immunity to pain, but shall not describe or diagnose such demeanor, conduct, or condition by use of the term excited delirium, or attribute such demeanor, conduct, or physical and mental condition to that term.
(c)CA Evidence Code § 1156.5(c) For the purposes of this section, “excited delirium” means a term used to describe a person’s state of agitation, excitability, paranoia, extreme aggression, physical violence, and apparent immunity to pain that is not listed in the most current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or for which the court finds there is insufficient scientific evidence or diagnostic criteria to be recognized as a medical condition. Excited delirium also includes excited delirium syndrome, excited delirium, hyperactive delirium, agitated delirium, and exhaustive mania.

Section § 1157

Explanation

This law shields the discussions and records of various medical and healthcare provider committees that oversee the quality of care from being examined in a legal case. Basically, what is discussed in these committee meetings can't be used as evidence in court or be inspected for legal proceedings.

However, there are exceptions. If a person from the meeting is directly involved in a legal case related to the meeting's subject, or if someone is seeking hospital staff privileges or is in a lawsuit against an insurance company about a settlement, these protections don't apply. Also, if the committee is too large (more than 10% of its society’s membership) or if a person has a conflict of interest because their own conduct is under review, they can’t use this shield.

This section also notes that these protections don’t apply if the case involves criminal charges, meaning such discussions can be used in criminal court. Lastly, it clarifies that terms related to emergency medical personnel are as defined in a specific health and safety code section.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1157(a) Neither the proceedings nor the records of organized committees of medical, medical-dental, podiatric, registered dietitian, psychological, marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, pharmacist, prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel, or veterinary staffs, or of a peer review body, as defined in Section 805 of the Business and Professions Code, having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital, or for that peer review body, or medical or dental review or dental hygienist review or chiropractic review or podiatric review or registered dietitian review or pharmacist review or veterinary review or acupuncturist review or licensed midwife review or prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel review committees of local medical, dental, dental hygienist, podiatric, dietetic, pharmacist, veterinary, acupuncture, chiropractic, or prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel societies, marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, or psychological review committees of state or local marriage and family therapist, state or local licensed clinical social worker, state or local licensed professional clinical counselor, or state or local psychological associations or societies or licensed midwife associations or societies having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care, shall be subject to discovery.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1157(b) Except as hereinafter provided, a person in attendance at a meeting of any of the committees described in subdivision (a) shall not be required to testify as to what transpired at that meeting.
(c)CA Evidence Code § 1157(c) The prohibition relating to discovery or testimony does not apply to the statements made by a person in attendance at a meeting of any of the committees described in subdivision (a) if that person is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at that meeting, to a person requesting hospital staff privileges, or in an action against an insurance carrier alleging bad faith by the carrier in refusing to accept a settlement offer within the policy limits.
(d)CA Evidence Code § 1157(d) The prohibitions in this section do not apply to medical, dental, dental hygienist, podiatric, dietetic, psychological, marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical social worker, professional clinical counselor, pharmacist, veterinary, acupuncture, midwifery, chiropractic, or prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel society committees that exceed 10 percent of the membership of the society, nor to any of those committees if a person serves upon the committee when his or her own conduct or practice is being reviewed.
(e)CA Evidence Code § 1157(e) The amendments made to this section by Chapter 1081 of the Statutes of 1983, or at the 1985 portion of the 1985–86 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 1990 portion of the 1989–90 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2000 portion of the 1999–2000 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2011 portion of the 2011–12 Regular Session of the Legislature, at the 2015 portion of the 2015–16 Regular Session of the Legislature, or at the 2024 portion of the 2023–24 Regular Session of the Legislature, do not exclude the discovery or use of relevant evidence in a criminal action.
(f)CA Evidence Code § 1157(f) For purposes of this section, “prehospital emergency medical care person or personnel” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1797.188 of the Health and Safety Code.

Section § 1157.5

Explanation

This statute says that, unless a health care provider is seeking payment for services, the rules preventing discovery or testimony in certain cases (referenced in Section 1157) also apply to committees of nonprofit medical foundations or professional standards review organizations. These committees are organized to assess the necessity, quality, and cost justification of health services.

Except in actions involving a claim of a provider of health care services for payment for such services, the prohibition relating to discovery or testimony provided by Section 1157 shall be applicable to the proceedings or records of an organized committee of any nonprofit medical care foundation or professional standards review organization which is organized in a manner which makes available professional competence to review health care services with respect to medical necessity, quality of care, or economic justification of charges or level of care.

Section § 1157.6

Explanation

This law protects the privacy of proceedings and records from committees focused on improving mental health care in county-operated facilities. These records can't be made public or used in a legal discovery, which is the process of gathering evidence for a case. Attendees of these committee meetings aren't required to testify about what happened there, unless the person is directly involved in a legal case related to the meeting’s subject or is seeking privileges to work at the facility.

Neither the proceedings nor the records of a committee established in compliance with Sections 4070 and 5624 of the Welfare and Institutions Code having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of mental health care rendered in county operated and contracted mental health facilities shall be subject to discovery. Except as provided in this section, no person in attendance at a meeting of any such committee shall be required to testify as to what transpired thereat. The prohibition relating to discovery or testimony shall not apply to the statements made by any person in attendance at such a meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting, or to any person requesting facility staff privileges.

Section § 1157.7

Explanation

This law states that rules preventing the discovery or testimony about certain committee proceedings and records, as outlined in Section 1157, also apply to special committees made by local government. These committees look into the quality and necessity of specialized health services, like trauma care, provided by specific hospitals. Additionally, certain government transparency laws do not apply to these committee records and proceedings. This means their meetings and records are not open to public access or scrutiny under those laws.

The prohibition relating to discovery or testimony provided in Section 1157 shall be applicable to proceedings and records of any committee established by a local governmental agency to monitor, evaluate, and report on the necessity, quality, and level of specialty health services, including, but not limited to, trauma care services, provided by a general acute care hospital that has been designated or recognized by that governmental agency as qualified to render specialty health care services. The provisions of Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code and Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code shall not be applicable to the committee records and proceedings.

Section § 1158

Explanation

This section defines who counts as a "medical provider," including doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, psychologists, pharmacists, and hospitals. It gives procedures for attorneys to request a patient's medical records before a lawsuit is filed or before the defendant appears in court. The request must come with proper written authorization from the patient or their representative.

Medical providers must make records available within five days of the request, and they can charge reasonable fees for this. If they fail to do so, they may be liable for costs, including attorney fees, incurred to enforce this right. However, attorneys can have a professional photocopier retrieve the records instead of relying on the medical provider's staff.

The law also covers records held electronically and specifies that if requested, these should be produced in electronic form. Providers must accept completed authorization forms if in a certain format, and they can't make medical treatment conditional on the submission of these forms.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1158(a) For purposes of this section, “medical provider” means physician and surgeon, dentist, registered nurse, dispensing optician, registered physical therapist, podiatrist, licensed psychologist, osteopathic physician and surgeon, chiropractor, clinical laboratory bioanalyst, clinical laboratory technologist, or pharmacist or pharmacy, duly licensed as such under the laws of the state, or a licensed hospital.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1158(b) Before the filing of any action or the appearance of a defendant in an action, if an attorney at law or his or her representative presents a written authorization therefor signed by an adult patient, by the guardian or conservator of his or her person or estate, or, in the case of a minor, by a parent or guardian of the minor, or by the personal representative or an heir of a deceased patient, or a copy thereof, to a medical provider, the medical provider shall promptly make all of the patient’s records under the medical provider’s custody or control available for inspection and copying by the attorney at law or his or her representative.
(c)CA Evidence Code § 1158(c) Copying of medical records shall not be performed by a medical provider, or by an agent thereof, when the requesting attorney has employed a professional photocopier or anyone identified in Section 22451 of the Business and Professions Code as his or her representative to obtain or review the records on his or her behalf. The presentation of the authorization by the agent on behalf of the attorney shall be sufficient proof that the agent is the attorney’s representative.
(d)CA Evidence Code § 1158(d) Failure to make the records available during business hours, within five days after the presentation of the written authorization, may subject the medical provider having custody or control of the records to liability for all reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in any proceeding to enforce this section.
(e)Copy CA Evidence Code § 1158(e)
(1)Copy CA Evidence Code § 1158(e)(1) All reasonable costs incurred by a medical provider in making patient records available pursuant to this section may be charged against the attorney who requested the records.
(2)CA Evidence Code § 1158(e)(2) “Reasonable cost,” as used in this section, shall include, but not be limited to, the following specific costs: ten cents ($0.10) per page for standard reproduction of documents of a size 81/2 by 14 inches or less; twenty cents ($0.20) per page for copying of documents from microfilm; actual costs for the reproduction of oversize documents or the reproduction of documents requiring special processing which are made in response to an authorization; reasonable clerical costs incurred in locating and making the records available to be billed at the maximum rate of sixteen dollars ($16) per hour per person, computed on the basis of four dollars ($4) per quarter hour or fraction thereof; actual postage charges; and actual costs, if any, charged to the witness by a third person for the retrieval and return of records held by that third person.
(f)CA Evidence Code § 1158(f) If the records are delivered to the attorney or the attorney’s representative for inspection or photocopying at the record custodian’s place of business, the only fee for complying with the authorization shall not exceed fifteen dollars ($15), plus actual costs, if any, charged to the record custodian by a third person for retrieval and return of records held offsite by the third person.
(g)CA Evidence Code § 1158(g) If the records requested pursuant to subdivision (b) are maintained electronically and if the requesting party requests an electronic copy of such information, the medical provider shall provide the requested medical records in the electronic form and format requested by the requesting party, if it is readily producible in such form and format, or, if not, in a readable form and format as agreed to by the medical provider and the requesting party.
(h)CA Evidence Code § 1158(h) A medical provider shall accept a signed and completed authorization form for the disclosure of health information if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1)CA Evidence Code § 1158(h)(1) The medical provider determines that the form is valid.
(2)CA Evidence Code § 1158(h)(2) The form is printed in a typeface no smaller than 14-point type and is in substantially the following form:
AUTHORIZATION FOR DISCLOSURE OF HEALTH INFORMATION PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1158
The undersigned authorizes the medical provider designated below to disclose specified medical records to a designated recipient. The medical provider shall not condition treatment, payment, enrollment, or eligibility for benefits on the submission of this authorization.
Medical provider: ________________

Patient name: ________________
Medical record number: ________________
Date of birth: ________________
Address: ________________
Telephone number: ________________
Email: ________________

Recipient name: ________________
Recipient address: ________________
Recipient telephone number: ________________
Recipient email: ________________

Health information requested (check all that apply):
___Records dated from ________ to ________.
___Radiology records: ________ images or films ________ reports________digital/CD, if available.
___Laboratory results dated.
___Laboratory results regarding specific test(s) only (specify)________.
___All records.
___Records related to a specific injury, treatment, or other purpose (specify): ________________.

Note: records may include information related to mental health, alcohol or drug use, and HIV or AIDS. However, treatment records from mental health and alcohol or drug departments and results of HIV tests will not be disclosed unless specifically requested (check all that apply):

___Mental health records.
___Alcohol or drug records.
___HIV test results.

Method of delivery of requested records:
___Mail
___Pick up
___Electronic delivery, recipient email:________________

This authorization is effective for one year from the date of the signature unless a different date is specified here: ________________.

This authorization may be revoked upon written request, but any revocation will not apply to information disclosed before receipt of the written request.

A copy of this authorization is as valid as the original. The undersigned has the right to receive a copy of this authorization.

Notice: Once the requested health information is disclosed, any disclosure of the information by the recipient may no longer be protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

Patient signature*: ________________
Date: ________________
Print name: ________________

*If not signed by the patient, please indicate relationship to the patient (check one, if applicable):

___Parent or guardian of minor patient who could not have consented to health care.
___Guardian or conservator of an incompetent patient.
___Beneficiary or personal representative of deceased patient.

Section § 1159

Explanation

This law states that evidence from live animal experimentation, like crash tests, cannot be used in court for product liability cases involving motor vehicles.

It applies to trials that hadn’t begun by January 1, 1993.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1159(a) No evidence pertaining to live animal experimentation, including, but not limited to, injury, impact, or crash experimentation, shall be admissible in any product liability action involving a motor vehicle or vehicles.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1159(b) This section shall apply to cases for which a trial has not actually commenced, as described in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 581 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on January 1, 1993.

Section § 1160

Explanation

This California law states that if someone expresses sympathy or kindness after an accident, such as saying they're sorry for the pain or death involved, those words or actions can't be used as evidence to prove they are at fault in a civil lawsuit. However, if the person actually admits to being at fault, that part can be used in court.

An 'accident' here means an unexpected event causing injury or death, not something done on purpose. 'Benevolent gestures' are actions showing compassion, and 'family' includes close relatives like spouses, parents, siblings, and children.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1160(a) The portion of statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident and made to that person or to the family of that person shall be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability in a civil action. A statement of fault, however, which is part of, or in addition to, any of the above shall not be inadmissible pursuant to this section.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1160(b) For purposes of this section:
(1)CA Evidence Code § 1160(b)(1) “Accident” means an occurrence resulting in injury or death to one or more persons which is not the result of willful action by a party.
(2)CA Evidence Code § 1160(b)(2) “Benevolent gestures” means actions which convey a sense of compassion or commiseration emanating from humane impulses.
(3)CA Evidence Code § 1160(b)(3) “Family” means the spouse, parent, grandparent, stepmother, stepfather, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half brother, half sister, adopted children of parent, or spouse’s parents of an injured party.

Section § 1161

Explanation

This law section states that if someone is a victim of human trafficking, any evidence showing they've engaged in prostitution or similar acts due to trafficking cannot be used to claim they are criminally responsible for those acts. Additionally, a victim's past sexual activities or involvement in commercial sexual acts cannot be used to question their honesty or character in any legal proceedings.

(a)CA Evidence Code § 1161(a) Evidence that a victim of human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1 of the Penal Code, has engaged in any commercial sexual act as a result of being a victim of human trafficking is inadmissible to prove the victim’s criminal liability for the commercial sexual act.
(b)CA Evidence Code § 1161(b) Evidence of sexual history or history of any commercial sexual act of a victim of human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1 of the Penal Code, is inadmissible to attack the credibility or impeach the character of the victim in any civil or criminal proceeding.

Section § 1162

Explanation

This California law states that if someone is a victim or a witness of serious crimes like assault, domestic violence, or human trafficking, any evidence that they engaged in prostitution around the time they were involved with these crimes cannot be used against them in a separate prostitution case. This rule protects them from being prosecuted for prostitution in connection with their victim or witness status.

Evidence that a victim of, or a witness to, a serious felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of, an assault in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 245 of, domestic violence in violation of Section 273.5 of, extortion in violation of Section 518 of, human trafficking in violation of Section 236.1 of, sexual battery in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 243.4 of, or stalking in violation of Section 646.9 of, the Penal Code, has engaged in an act of prostitution at or around the time they were the victim of or witness to the crime is inadmissible in a separate prosecution of that victim or witness to prove criminal liability for the act of prostitution.