California Evidence Code for Text Message Evidence
A dozen sections of the California Evidence Code, on seven pages here, do almost all the work when a text message is offered in a California court. They answer, in order: is a text a "writing" at all (§250); is it relevant (§210, §350, §352); is it hearsay (§1200), and if so does the party-admission exception apply (§1220); has it been authenticated (§1400–1401); can you use a screenshot or printout instead of the original (§1521–1523); and does a printout of phone data get a presumption of accuracy (§1552–1553).
Each page below quotes the section verbatim and explains what it means for a text-message exhibit. Start with the question you're stuck on.
| Section | Question it answers | Page |
|---|---|---|
| § 250 | Is a text message a "writing"? | Evidence Code § 250: "writing" includes text messages |
| § 210, § 350, § 352 | Is the message relevant, and can the court exclude it anyway? | Evidence Code §§ 210, 350 and 352: relevance |
| § 1200 | Is the message hearsay? | Evidence Code § 1200: the hearsay rule |
| § 1220 | Can I use the other party's own texts against them? | Evidence Code § 1220: admission of a party |
| § 1400–1401 | How do I authenticate a text message? | Evidence Code 1401: authenticating text messages |
| § 1521–1523 | Can I use a screenshot or printout instead of the phone? | Evidence Code §§ 1521–1523: the secondary evidence rule |
| § 1552–1553 | Is a printout of phone data presumed accurate? | Evidence Code §§ 1552–1553: printed representations of computer data and digital images |
How the sections fit together
A text message exhibit passes through them in sequence. It is a writing (§250), so the writing rules apply. It must be relevant (§210, §350), and even then the court can exclude it if it would waste time or unfairly prejudice (§352). If it is offered to prove the truth of what it says, it is hearsay (§1200) and needs an exception; when the other party wrote it, §1220 usually supplies one. Before any of that matters, the message must be authenticated (§1400–1401), and because you will be offering a copy rather than the phone, the copy itself must be admissible under the secondary evidence rule (§1521) and authenticated too (§1521(c)). A printout of the phone's data starts with a presumption that it is accurate (§1552), which the other side can rebut.
The practical consequence is that how the messages were collected determines how many of these hurdles are easy. A screenshot has to be authenticated on the recipient's word and invites a §1521 fairness objection because it is incomplete. A device extraction with full timestamps, sender numbers, a hash and an audit log gives the court a basis to find the exhibit is what it claims (§1400), that it is a fair copy (§1521), and that the printout is accurate (§1552). See Text message forensics.
Other states
Texas, Florida and New York have their own versions of these rules; the overview is at Are text messages admissible in court?, with links to each state's post.
Reference pages, not legal advice. Statute text is quoted from the California Evidence Code as published; confirm the current text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov before relying on it.