How does the statement against interest hearsay exception differ in California?

Hypo 1: Bob is a highly regarded teacher at a prestigious school. He confides in his friend Sam, "I faked my teaching credentials and have no formal qualifications." Bob dies in a car accident shortly after. The school is sued by parents who claim their children's education suffered due to Bob's lack of qualifications. In the lawsuit, the parents seeks to introduce Bob's statement through Sam's testimony to show that Bob misrepresented his qualifications. Result: Bob's admission would be admissible under California's statement against interest exception. The statement is against Bob's social interest, as it would subject him to disgrace and ridicule if known. Bob's death makes him unavailable, satisfying the requirement for this hearsay exception.

Hypo 2: Bob, a respected doctor, tells Sam during a private conversation, "I often prescribe medications without fully understanding the patient's condition because it's quicker." Bob later dies unexpectedly. A patient sues Bob's estate for malpractice, claiming improper medication led to severe health complications. The plaintiff seeks to introduce Bob's statement through Sam's testimony to establish Bob's negligence. Result: Bob's statement would be admissible under California's statement against interest exception. The statement subjects Bob to potential social disgrace and ridicule within the medical community. Bob's unavailability due to his death meets the rule's requirement.