Sriyantha Benedict Sirimanne, et ux. v. Miguel Garcia

For almost a century, the parol evidence rule prevents the variations of the terms of a written con­ tract by oral testimony. The statute of fraud makes unenforceable oral contracts to grant, deed, or will real property. Most, if not all, States have statutes or by common law do the same. California statutes, Cal. Civ. Code § 1625 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1856 (parol evidence rule), and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1091 and 1971 (statute of frauds - real estate transactions). The parol evidence rule and the statute of frauds are inherently part of the factfinding process of a trial. This Court has explained that “The function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.” [Citations Omitted] Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health (1990) 497 U.S. 261, 282. In this case, jury relied on inadmissible evidence in reaching the verdict, the trial judge denied a motion to vacate the judgment, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment, itself pointing to inadmissi­ ble evidence as the basis for affirming the judgment. The Question Presented Is: 1. Whether a judgment based on inadmissible evidence violates due process.