Defendant Geraldine Jean Spencer was charged by information with manslaughter (Pen. Code, §192). After trial to the court, sitting without a- jury, defendant was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. 1) and was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. She appeals from the judgment of conviction.1 *935Defendant and the victim Amelia Ortega, also known as Emily Ortega, were lesbians who had lived together as such for a period of four years prior to Emily’s .death. Their relaionship often erupted into violence, usually after one or both had been drinking. Numerous witnesses called by both prosecution and defense testified to prior quarrels between defend-nt and Emily in the course of which one of the women was cut or stabbed by the other with a knife. Emily, the larger of he two, was usually the aggressor, but on occasions defendant attacked Emily. There was also evidence that defendant had at least once threatened to kill Emily.
At 3 p.m. on May 4, 1967, defendant went to work at the Jaguar Bar and Cafe in Bakersfield, an establishment owned by Emily and defendant, which served food and. beer. Emily arrived about 10 or 11 p.m. and drank two beers very rapidly. Dhere was evidence that Emily did not appear to be intoxicated when she came into the cafe; there was also evidence hat prior to her arrival she and another woman had consumed a quantity of vodka and whiskey as a result of which Emily was in a condition described as “glowing.” Appar-mtly nothing unusual transpired between defendant and Emily from the time the latter entered the cafe until approximately 2:05 a.m. on May 5. The only persons then present were defendant, Emily, Berta Swain, who was both cook and bartender, and a customer sitting at one of the tables who was unconscious from .drinking.
At that point while the three women were cleaning up the cafe, Emily and defendant engaged in a brief verbal argument which rejaehed a climax when Emily threw a glass of beer in defendant's face, slammed the glass down causing it to break, and walked outside talking in a confused manner. While defendant was washing off the beer, Emily re-entered the bar, pulled defendant by the hair and grabbed her by the neck. Berta Swain, who was sweeping the. floor in another part of the establishment, heard defendant calling for help*. Concluding that defendant was getting the worst of the struggle, Berta pushed the women apart and told Emily to leave defendant alone. Berta testified that neither of the *936women had any weapons in their hands although she did notice what appeared to be a broken glass on the floor. She also observed that defendant’s hair was wet. After this episode, Emily again went outside.
A short time later, Berta, who had gone back to her sweeping, again-heard defendant and Emily quarreling. The latte had re-entered the bar and both women were standing by the side door. They were not engaged in a physical struggle neither of them held any kind of weapon. For some unex plained reason, Berta then left the cafe and did not see the events thereafter taking place.
The only evidence of the circumstances of the killing itself was derived from a statement given by defendant five days later in the presence of her attorney to an investigator of the district attorney’s office. The statement was taken down by a reporter and transcribed, and a copy was admitted in evidence and read into the record.2 So far as is here pertinent defendant stated in substance as follows: During the course of the argument last referred to defendant ran into the kitchen and closed the door behind her. While she was standing at a worktable with her back to the door, she heard Emily enter the kitchen. Defendant looked over her shoulder and saw Emily “charging at” her. She cried out “Emily, please leave me alone,” or “Keep away from me.” Although defendant did not remember picking up a knife from the table, when she turned around and saw Emily coming at her, defendant had a knife in her hand. Emily did not appear to have anything in her hands. According to defendant the stabbing occurred, “Right at that point. That is when it happened . . . Then she jumped away and I saw the blood. I dropped the knif e right by the table and I screamed. ’ ’
By this time 'Berta Swaih had walked around the outside of the cafe toward her car in front of the building. She heard defendant screaming her name and through a window saw defendant running toward the front door. Defendant opened the door and called to Berta to summon an ambulance. After doing so, Berta w;ent into the kitchen and saw Emily lying op the floor with defendant kneeling beside her. At the trial *937Berta testified for the defense that she knelt over Emily and thought she heard Emily say “something about she [defendant] didn’t mean to do it.” Berta denied, however, that she heard Emily say it was an accident. For purposes of impeachment, the defense called four witnesses who testified that Berta had told them that Emily had said the stabbing was an accident.
Dr. Tilden Moe, associate pathologist at the Kern County General Hospital, performed an autopsy on Emily Ortega between.9 and 10 a.m. on May 5. He testified that upon Emily’s arrival at the hospital, surgery had been performed on her in an attempt to save her life but that she died from irreversible shock due to' severe blood loss caused by a stab wound above the navel. He also found a laceration in the upper abdominal aorta and indicated that the surgeon had found that a portion of Emily’s liver had been lacerated. Doctor Moe opined that it was possible that Emily could have inflicted the injuries upon herself by running against a knife held by another person if the knife was held rigidly. He also indicated that at the time of the autopsy Emily’s spinal fluid contained 128 milligrams percent alcohol.
The prosecution tried the case on the theory that defendant killed Emily in the heat of passion. The defense claim of self-defense and lack of criminal intent rested on the theory that Emily inflicted the wound upon herself by running against the knife which defendant merely held in her hand.
At the outset we are confronted with defendant’s assertion that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Before we may set aside a judgment on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘it must be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached in the court below.’ ” (People v. Newland (1940) 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778].) The evidence as set forth above clearly is sufficient to sustain the trial court’s conclusion that defendant killed Emily “upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.” (Pen. Code, §192, subd. 1.) The fact that it also might be sufficient to sustain a finding that the stabbing was done in self-defense does not provide grounds for reversal of the judgment, for “ [i]f the circumstances reasonably justify the [judgment], the opinion, of the reviewing court that' those circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with the innocence of the defendant *938will not warrant interference with the determination of the! [trier of fact].” {Ibid.) I
Of more consequence is defendant’s claim that certain evidence introduced by the prosecution in rebuttal was violative of the rule of People v. Johnson (1968) 68 Cal.2d 646 [68 Cal.Rptr. 599, 441 P.2d 111] cert. den. (1969) 393 U.S. 1051 [21 L.Ed.2d 693, 89 S.Ct. 679].)
We set forth the pertinent facts. As previously indicated, Berta Swain testified for the defense as to the events surrounding the killing. On cross-examination by the prosecutor, Berta was asked if she' recalled talking on May 5 with Emily’s sister, Lillian Moreno. She replied that she did. She was then asked: “Do you remember telling on that day to Lillian, that during the course of that quarrel that earlier during the early morning hours [of May 5], that Geraldine Spencer broke a beer 'bottle . . . And made a statement that she was going to get Emily with it?” Berta replied that she did not recall making such a statement.3 In rebuttal, the prosecutor called Lillian Moreno who testified that on May 5, Berta told her, “that she [Berta] saw everything, that [defendant] picked up a bottle — picked up a bottle, a beer bottle, and broke it on the edge of the bar and was going to come towards my sister, Emily Ortega, and I [sic] told her that she was going to get it. That is what she told me. ’ ’4
There can be no doubt that if Berta’s extrajudicial statement was admitted under Evidence Code section 12355 for *939substantive use, it was error under Johnson,6 In that ease holding that section 1235 as applied to criminal cases is unconstitutional, we explained that prior inconsistent statements of a witness, while admissible for impeachment purposes, cannot be given substantive use in a criminal trial because to do so would deprive the defendant of his constitutional right of confrontation guaranteed to him by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We pointed out that the opportunity to cross-examine a witness at trial about a statement previously made by him out of court is not cross-examination which is constitutionally adequate. (68 Cal.2d at p. 660. See Barber v. Page (1968) 390 U.S. 719 [20 L.Ed.2d 255, 88 S.Ct. 1318]; People v. Green (1969) 70 Cal.2d 654 [75 Cal.Rptr. 782, 451 P.2d 422].) Thus, if Berta’s extrajudicial hearsay statement was admitted under section 1235 for its substantive use, such admission was clearly error since it is obvious that, Berta not having made the statement during any judicial proceeding, defendant of course did not have any opportunity to cross-examine her at the time the statement was made.7
Because the present case was tried to the court without a jury and the record is therefore devoid of instructions indicating how the statement- was used the Attorney General argues: (1) that it is possible that the court admitted the *940statement as a spontaneous declaration under section 12408 ratber than as a prior inconsistent statement under section 1235; and (2) that even if it was admitted under section 1235 there is no way of determining whether the court used it substantively or only for impeachment. 1
We do not believe that the statement allegedly made by it Berta to Lillian Moreno was admitted under section 1240. The» Law Revision Commission comment to section 1240 indicates! that it was intended to be a codification of the so-called ‘ ‘ res! gestae” exception to the hearsay rule as set forth in Showalter v. Western Pac. R.R. Co. (1940) 16 Cal.2d 460 [106 P.2d 895]. This court there explained the rule to be “that! declarations which are voluntary and spontaneous and made H so near the time of the-principle act as to preclude the idea of I deliberate design, though not precisely concurrent in point of H time therewith, are regarded as contemporaneous and admissi-1 ble.” (Italics added.) (16 Cal.2d at p. 465.) In expanding on H the portion italicized above, we stated that “where a declara-1 tion is made under the immediate, influence of the occurrence I to which it relates and so near the time of that occurrence as I to negative any probability of fabrication, said declaration is I admissible.” (Showalter v. Western Pac. R.R. Co., supra, 16 Cal.2d at p.467.)
The People have not called to our attention, nor have we I found, anything in the instant record giving any indication I that Berta’s extrajudicial statement was offered or received in I evidence under section 1240. Absent such support in' the H record, we cannot assume that the admission of the statement N rested upon and is justified by that section.
On the contrary we think that a fair reading of the record before us indicates that the only basis for the admission of the statement was under section 1235 as a prior inconsistent statement. Indeed, as we note below, the prosecutor’s purpose in introducing the statement was to discredit Berta Swain’s testimony on direct examination which corroborated defendant’s statements in the record and supported the defense theory that Emily was the aggressor. Although Berta did not testify in so many words that Emily was the aggressor, nevertheless-, the general tenor of her testimony was consistent with *941efendant’s theory of the ease and highly corroborative of hose portions of defendant’s pretrial statement indicating cts of aggression hy Emily.9 Thus, the hearsay declaration ras inconsistent in effect with Berta’s testimony on direct xamination in that it tended- to indicate that defendant at *942one time was the aggressor during the period of quarreling preceding the killing.
“It is not necessary that there should be contrariety in terms between the testimony given and the asserted impeaching statement. It is only necessary in order to render in admissible that the statement should have a tendency to con tradict or disprove the testimony or any inference to be deduced from it.” (Hanton v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1918) 178 Cal. 616, 619 [174 P. 61]; accord: Worley v. Spreckels Bros. Commercial Co. (1912) 163 Cal. 60, 72 [124 P. 697] Gregoriev v. Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co. (1928) 95 Cal.App 428, 438 [273 P. 76]. See 3 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed 1940), § 1040, pp. 725-726.) Thus, the statement was properl] admitted for the purpose of impeaching the testimony given bj Berta on direct examination.10
Since, therefore, the only possible basis for the admission oi the statement was section 1235, we are confronted with the question whether the court limited its use to impeachmenl purposes or whether it also gave the statement substantive use as permitted by that section prior to our decision in Johnson In People v. Hopper (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 774 [75 Cal.Rptr. 253], the court, faced with the identical problem, determined that “ [s]ince People v. Johnson had not yet restricted the scope of Evidence Code section 1235 in criminal cases, there was no apparent reason for the trial judge, as finder of fact, to abstain from considering the statements as substantive evidence against the defendants. We cannot assume that the judge limited this evidence to the narrow purpose of weighing credibility.’’ (268 Cal.App.2d at p. 777.) We think that this assumption is sound. It not only conforms to the well settled rule that a statute “is presumed to be constitutional until the contrary appears,” (Fox etc. Corp. v. City of Bakersfield (1950) 36 Cal.2d 136, 141 [222 P.2d 879]; see Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 684, 693 [128 P.2d 529]; Hart v. City of Beverly Hills (1938) 11 Cal.2d 343, 348 [79 P.2d 1080]) but it also is in accord with the instant record which shows neither that counsel asserted the unconstitutionality of section *943235 nor that the court even considered that the section might j invalid. If the court felt that the section was unconstitutional, presumably it would have so stated for the record. In ie absence of such statement we cannot assume that the court did not follow the law. There was thus error in giving erta’s prior inconsistent statement substantive use.
The People have failed to show that the error was armless to defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710, 87 S.Ct. 824]; People v. Johnson, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 60.) Berta’s hearsay statement concerned conduct of defendnt on the night of the killing. Berta was the only witness dio gave testimony as to the events immediately preceding he killing and her account thereof was substantially in ecord with that of defendant and was strong evidence that Dmily was the aggressor on May 5. As previously noted, the lefense was a claim of self-defense and it is extremely relevant to a determination thereof as to who was the aggressor in he altercation. (See People v. Lew (1968) 68 Cal.2d 774, 779 [69 Cal.Rptr. 102, 441 P.2d 942].) Berta’s hearsay statement vas the only evidence of the events of May 5 which made lefendant out to be the aggressor.11 Such evidence of aggresiion by defendant at a time proximate to Emily’s death ‘strikes directly at the heart of the defense.” (People v. Ireland (1969) 70 Cal.2d 522, 532 [75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580].) Although, as the Attorney General contends, the jourt may have found that Emily was in fact the aggressor but nevertheless rejected defendant’s claim of self-defense, there is a “reasonable possibility” (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 [17 L.Ed.2d at p. 710]) that the court accepted Berta’s hearsay statement as true and on the basis thereof found defendant to be the aggressor. The possibility that Berta’s statement contributed to defendant’s conviction *944compels us to hold the error prejudicial. We must thereto] reverse the judgment.
One of defendant’s other contentions warrants our attention for the guidance of the court upon retrial.
Defendant claims that a statement made by Emily of May 4 to one of her friends, Mary Banda, was improperl admitted at trial. Called as a witness for the proseeutioi| Mary testified on direct examination, over defendant’s objection, that on.May 4, Emily had told her: “Bridges [Mary nickname], I am breaking up with Gerry [defendant] tonigh' I might get killed over it but I am going, to do it. ’ ’
Defendant argues that the statement was inadmissible hear say and was irrelevant to any issue in the action since therl was no question as to what Emily intended to do on the nighl of May 4. The Attorney General argues that the statemen was admissible to show Emily’s “state of mind at the time of her death, i.e., that she feared the appellant because of hei extreme jealousy.” To this extent reliance is placed on section 1250, the so-called state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule.12 To be admissible under that section the evidence mus be offered (1) to prove the declarant’s state of mind when r is itself an issue in the action or (2) to prove or explain ac or conduct of the declarant.
At the outset we note that Emily’s statement is hearsay as that evidence is defined in section 1200.13 The evidence was not offered to prove “whether certain things were said or done [without regard] to whether these things were true or false” (People v. Henry (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 785, 789 [195 P.2d 478]), but rather was offered “to prove the truth of the matter stated” (§1200, subd. (a)), i.e., that the statements were in fact true and being so, indicated Emily’s true state of *945ad. (See People v. Ireland, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 529.), hearsay it was inadmissible unless it came within the state-mind exception to the hearsay rule as asserted by the attorney General.
As in Ireland, the declarant Emily’s state of mind is not elf an issue in the action thus eliminating subdivision ) (1) of section 1250 as "the basis of admissibility of the dement. (See People v. Ireland, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 9.) The remaining ground of admissibility is, therefore, bdivision (a) (2) of that section, i.e., that the statement was iffered to prove or explain acts or conduct” of Emily. The btorney General urges in support thereof that defendant’s ;laim of self-defense' required the trier of fact to find that flier the victim was the aggressor or that the [defendant] ied excessive force in defending herself. The evidence em-idied in the testimony [pretrial statement] of the [defend-it] and the'corroborating testimony of Mrs. [Berta] Swain as strong proof that the victim was the aggressor at the time Le was stabbed. In .rebuttal, it was entirely proper for the •osecution to show that the victim was apprehensive on the ly of her death and not likely to be aggressive toward the lefendant].” We believe that this analysis is correct and covides a proper basis for the admission of Emily’s hearsay ;atement.
The issue of self-defense had been raised by defendant both t the preliminary hearing, the transcript of which was made art of the evidence at trial, and by defense counsel’s opening statement to the court. It was thus proper for the People to' itroduce evidence that defendant was the aggressor. Rea-mably interpreted, Emily’s statement that “I might get illed over it . . . .” expresses her fear that defendant might ecome violent once Emily broke up with her. From this fear ; could be inferred that Emily was not the aggressor, and that a fact defendant attacked Emily. As we said in People v. Lew, supra, 68 Cal.2d at page 779:14 “Or had defendant laimed- self-defense, he would have placed Karen’s [the victim’s] state of mind at issue[15] since a claim of self-defense *946requires the trier of fact to find that the other party was aggressor, the prosecution, through rebuttal testimony, coi have shown that Kwren was apprehensive and not likely to aggressive.. Her fear would then have been a factor propel before the factfinder in its deliberations on the defendan claim of self-defense.” (Italics added.) (Citing People v. Atchley (1959) 53 Cal.2d 160, 172 [346 P.2d 764].)
Our determination herein also is in accord with what recently said in Ireland with respect, to the application section 1250. In that case the trial court permitted the pro; cution to introduce the hearsay statement of the victim th “I know he’s [defendant] going to kill me. I wish he won hurry up and get it over with. He’ll never let me leave,” being relevant to rebut an alleged inference that the deceas was the aggressor. We held that the admission of that hears; statement was error because “the defense did not raise an issue of fact with respect to [the deceased’s] conduct imm diately preceding her death. The undisputed evidence . established that [the deceased] was reclining on a couch who she was shot by defendant.” (Original italics.) (70 Cal.2d at pp. 530-531.) Unlike Ireland, the claim of self-defense in t instant case raises a question of fact with respect to Emily conduct on May 5, i.e., whether or not she was the aggressol and therefore her statement is admissible “to prove or explal [her] acts or conduct.”16 (§ 1250, subd. (a) (2).)
Section 125217 provides that a hearsay statemei otherwise admissible under section 1250 is inadmissible : made under circumstances indicating its lack of trustworth ness. Defendant contends that circumstances surrounding th testimony óf Mary Banda indicate that such testimony we untrustworthy. In making this contention defendant miscor ceives the meaning of section 1252. That section has referene to the statement made by the hearsay declarant, Emily hereii not to the testimony of the witness who relates the hearsa statement to the trier of fact. (See People v. Lew, supra, 6 Cal.2d at p. 780.) The determination in the instant case i *947lis whether there is “at least circumstantial evidence that lie statements] [of Emily] are probably -trustworthy and Idible.’’ (Ibid.)
It was said in People v. Hamilton (1961) 55 Cal.2d 881, 895 3 Cal.Rptr. 649, 362 P.2d 473], that “the declarations, ling those of a present existing state of mind, made in a Itural manner and not under circumstances of .suspicion, Irry the probability of trustworthiness.” In the instant/case fendant has not directed our attention to anything in the cord indicating that Emily made the statement to Mary inda in other than a natural manner. No motive for Emily lie has been shown and in light of the past relations between defendant and Emily it was not unreasonable for the tter to foresee a possibility of violence on the part of fendant. Nothing, therefore, indicates that Emily’s state-ent was untrustworthy and it was therefore admissible ider section 1250.
Defendant further asserts that even if Emily’s stateent.was admissible'under section 1250, “there would be a rioús question whether its nse is now sanctioned by our Ldicial policy in view of the view expressed recently by the upreme Court in Johnson.” As previously indicated, in yhnson we held that section 1235 is unconstitutional in a iminal case because it deprives the defendant of the Sixth mendment right to confrontation. "We thus prohibited the lbstantive use of a. witness’ prior inconsistent'statement alíough we did not restrict its use for impeachment purposes. There is no basis for defendant’s conclusion that our deterdnation that section 1235 is constitutionally defective necesirily implies that all exceptions to the hearsay rule are lagued by the same constitutional infirmity. Each of the his>rical exceptions stands upon valid and long-honored priniples. The hearsay rule as adopted in this country has Always involved the idea of Exceptions, and the eonstitutioníakers indorsed the general principle merely as such. They id not attempt to enumerate exceptions-; they merely named nd described the principle sufficiently to indicate what was ntehded. . . (5 Wigmore on Evidence, .op.cit. supra, at 1397, pp. 130-131.) Our decision in Johnson does not indiate a “judicial policy” that is opposed to the hearsay exeep-ions -(Cf. People v. Green, supra, 70 Ca,1.2d at p. 664.) Defendant has not attempted to demonstrate wherein the evi:. lence admitted under section 1250 in the instant case contains hose infirmities found by us to be present in Johnson, and we *948do not feel compelled to undertake sua sponte a detail! analysis of the validity of the well established state-of-mij exception.
The attempted appeal from the verdict is dismissed; t| judgment is reversed.
Traynor, C. J., Peters, J., and Tobriner, J., concurred.Defendant appeals "from the verdict and judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed ....’’ Since the case was tried to the court sitting without a jury, there was no verdict. Had there been a verdict, no appeal *935would lie from it. (People v. Gotham (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 47, 50 [8 Cal.Rptr. 20].) In any event, the attempted appeal from the "verdict ” must be dismissed. The appeal from the "sentence" is the same as the appeal from the judgment since in a criminal action the terms axe synonymous. (People v. Perkins (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 793, 797 [305 P.2d 932]; People v. Tokich (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 515, 519 [275 P.2d 816].)
Purauant to stipulation the ease was submitted on the transcript of the preliminary hearing together with additional testimony adduced at the trial. Defendant did not take the stand at the trial. Although she testified at the preliminary hearing, the scope of her testimony did not encompass the circumstances of Emily’s death. Thus the sole evidence thereof is gleaned from defendant’s pretrial statement. No challenge as to its validity or its admission is made on this appeal.
When the prosecutor completed his re-cross-examination of Berta he requested that she not he excused from giving further testimony in the case. His request was granted as is evident from the following colloquy between himself, and the court:
“Mr. Allen [district attorney]: ... I would like this witness ordered to remain until excused.
‘f The Court: All right ...
“Mr. Allen: This witness may be called again.
“The Ootjrt: You had better remain outside until we decide whether we need you. ’’’
It is clear that the prosecution introduced Berta’s alleged extrajudicial statement on the basis that it referred to defendant’s actions at a time immediately preceding the killing. This is evident from the following. questions asked- Lillian Moreno by the prosecutor preliminarily to eliciting from her the substance of Berta’s statement: “Did you have occasion to talk to [Berta Swain] about the events immediately swrromd-ing, Emily’s deaths . . . Did [Berta Swain] make a statement to you as to what happened at the timet . . . Would you tell us what she said happened at the timet” (Italics added.)
Section 1235 provides: “Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made' inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770. ”
Section 770 provides: “Unless the interests of justice otherwise re: *939quire, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless: (a) The witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny the statements; or (b) The witness has not been excused from giving further testimony in the action.”
Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Evidence Code.
The fact that defendant failed to object to the introduction of Lillian’s testimony does not preclude her from raising error on appeal. Johnson worked a substantial change in the application of section 1235 and an objection by defendant at the time of trial would have been futile. (People v. Odom (1969) ante, pp. 709, 717 [78 Cal.Rptr. 873, 456 P.2d 145]; People v. De Santiago (1969) ante, pp. 18, 23 [76 Cal.Rptr. 809, 453 P.2d 353]; People v. Kitchens (1956) 46 Cal.2d 260, 262-263 [294 P.2d 17].)
The rule of Johnson applies with greater force in the instant ease for two reasons: First, in Johnson the hearsay declarant w'as under oath when the statement was made thus supplying at least a minimal assurance of its veracity whereas in the instant case Berta’s prior inconsistent statement was made during a casual conversation with Lillian Moreno. Second, the hearsay statement herein was introduced through the testimony of a witness who had to depend upon her memory rather than upon a transcript of the statement as was used in Johnson and Green. These two additional factors increase the risks created by the lack of cross-examination.
Section 1240 provides: “Evidence of a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement:
(a) Purports to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the deelarant; and
(b) Was made spontaneously while the deelarant was under the stress of excitement caused by such perception.”
The relevant portion of Berta’s testimony on direct examination is s follows:
‘ ‘ Q [hy defense attorney]: Okay, now, tell us about the first time, lhat you saw? A Well, they were just like-,'1 don’t know how to xplain it, but they had ahold of each other, you might say, wrestling round 9nly they were standing up, and they were--, was a glass thrown he first time. Q A glass thrown? A. Yes. Q Now, what did: you see with eference to the glass? A That is when Gerry started‘yelling for me to elp and that was right after I heard the glass — at least — break and knew it was thrown because it was all over the floor, and she was hold-ng her head. The Court: Who was holding her head? A Gerry was idding her head and she was all wet, her hair was. Q Now, when you aw them struggling together, did either one of them ask for your as-istanee? A Yes. Q Who asked for your assistance, Gerry or Emily? L Gerry. Q And what did Gerry say, or do you recall? A She was just spelling, ‘Berda, help me. Help me, Berda.’ Q Emily wasn’t asking for my help? A No. Q Would you state who was-, seemed to be getting he best of the struggle when you intervened? A I would say Emily was, } And then, did you go to Gerry’s assistance? A Yes. Q Did you sépa-nte them? A Yes. Q Now, whore did Gerry go after you separated hem? A She just backed away from us and I was standing next to ümily — I believe I had ahold of her arm- — and Gerry backed off about/ lour or five feet. Q Then what happened. A Well, they seemed to settle lown and that is when Emily turned around and went out the door. 3 And then what happened when Emily came back in, what did you say? í Well, I heard them scream and yell and when I turned around and ooked, they had ahold of each other again. Q Then what did you do, if anything? A I walked out the side door.”
As previously indicated, the transcript of the testimony given at the preliminary hearing was also before the court. (See fn. 2, supra.) It is íoteworthy that Berta’s testimony given thereat as a witness for the People conveys the same general idea that Emily was the aggressor.
It is also obvious that the prosecution believed that Berta’s testimony ;iven on direct examination implicitly indicated that Emily was the iggressor. The foundational question asked of Berta on cross-examina-;ion and the subsequent introduction of the testimony of Lillian Moreno impliedly acknowledged the substance of Berta’s testimony and were attempts to rebut that testimony by showing acts of aggression by defendant.
As a further indication of the prosecution’s evaluation of the evidence, we quote the following two portions of the Attorney General’s brief:
‘‘The evidence embodied in the testimony of the appellant and the corroborating testimony of Mrs. Swam was strong proof that the victim was the aggressor at the time she was stabbed.”
‘‘As pointed out above,-, the prosecution’s purpose in presenting this statement [i.e., Berta’s hearsay statement made to Lillian Moreno] was to rebut the appellant’s claim thgt the victim was the aggressor and the appellant killed in self-defense. The only bit of evidence other than Miss Moreno’s testimony which tended to contradict the appellant’s contention that the victim was the aggressor on the night she died was the extrajudicial statement [of Emily made on the night of the murder]. ’ ’ (Italics added.)'
Berta’s hearsay statement was inconsistent with her testimony as a defense witness, although it was not inconsistent with that portion thereof on cross-examination wherein she stated that she did not recall making her prior statement. (See People v. Sam (1969) ante, pp. 194, 210 [77 Cal.Rptr. 804, 454 P.2d 700].) In Sam, unlike the instant case, the witness ’ prior statement was not inconsistent with any testimony at the subsequent trial.
Contrary to the Attorney General’s contention, Berta’s hearsay statement was neither introduced to rebut evidence of defendant’s good character nor was it merely cumulative of other evidence of defendant’s stormy relationship with Emily. Rather, the statement concerned defendant’s actions during the continuous period of quarreling just prior to the killing (see fn. 4, ante) and, it appears to us that it was introduced to offset Berta’s testimony given on direct examination which tended to show that Emily was the aggressor. Officer Cerin of the Bakersfield Police Department testified that he arrived at the cafe at 2:20 a.m. and, as previously indicated, defendant and Emily first began to quarrel at 2:05 a.m. Since the validity of a claim of self-defense is a question of fact (People v. Davis (1965) 63 Cal.2d 648, 654 [47 Cal.Rptr. 801, 408 P.2d 129]), any evidence of threats made by defendant toward Emily during that 15-minute period tended to show that defendant was the aggressor and was thus highly relevant on the issue of self-defense.
Section 1250 provides: “(a) Subject to Section 1252, evidence of a statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health) is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when:
(1) The evidence is offered to prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when it is itself an issue in the action; or
(2) The evidence is offered to prove or explain acts or conduct of the deelarant.
(b) This section does not make admissible evidence of a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed.”
Section 1200 provides: “(a) ‘Hearsay evidence’ is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.
(b) Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
(ej This section shall be known and may be cited as the hearsay rule,”
Although Lew involved a trial which occurred prior to the effective late of the Evidence Code, we there stated that section 1250 “is in all essential respects a codification of the common law then existing in this urisdietion. ’’ (68 Cal.2d at p. 781, fn. 3.) It is thus a reliable guide o the proper application of section 1250. (See People v. Ireland, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 531, fn. 7.)
We pointed out in Ireland that the description in Lew of Karen’s itate of mind being in issue is technically inaccurate. (People v. Ireland, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 530, fn. 6.)
There is no need for us to attempt to separate Emily’s statement into two separate, distinct and independent sentences. In the light of the circumstances and manner in which they were made we construe he statement that she was going to break up with defendant as merely ; statement of her reasons for fearing defendant, thus making both sentences admissible as one statement of her state of mind under section 1250.
Section 1252 provides: “Evidence of a statement is inadmissibh under this article if the statement was made under circumstances such a¡ to indicate its lack of trustworthiness.’’