Error and/or relief
Because the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony, the order revoking the defendant’s Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
First Holding:
A preliminary hearing transcript of a witness’ testimony is not admissible at a parole or probation revocation hearing absent a showing of good cause.
Authority:
People v. Winson (1981) 29 Cal.3d 711
People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144
Second Holding:
A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence in a revocation hearing will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Authority:
People v. Shepherd (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1197-1198
Third Holding:
The court reviews rulings on whether hearsay was improperly admitted at a violation hearing for abuse of discretion.
Authority:
People v. Abrams (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 396, 400
Fourth Holding:
Before a defendant’s probation or parole may be revoked, the prosecution must prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Authority:
People v. O’Connell (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066
Fifth Holding:
Probation and parole revocations are not part of a criminal prosecution; as such, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding does not apply.
Authority:
People v. Gray (2023) 15 Cal.5th 152, 163
Sixth Holding:
The Sixth Amendment’s right of confrontation does not apply to probation violation hearings; rather, a defendant’s right to cross-examine and confront witnesses at a violation hearing stems from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right to confrontation, however, is not absolute and the parole revocation process should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.
Authority:
People v. Abrams (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 396, 400
People v. Winson (1981) 29 Cal.3d 711, 716, 719
Seventh Holding:
In considering the admissibility of hearsay evidence at a parole or probation revocation hearing, a case-by-case consideration is necessary because under a due process analysis, the importance of a defendant’s confrontation right will vary with the circumstances.
Authority:
People v. Liggins (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 55, 66-67
Eighth Holding:
The California Supreme Court has has established two separate standards for admitting hearsay evidence depending on whether the hearsay is testimonial or documentary in nature. With respect to testimonial evidence, a preliminary hearing transcript of a witness’ testimony is not admissible at a parole or probation revocation hearing absent a showing of good cause. The broad standard of good cause is met (1) when the declarant is unavailable under the traditional hearsay standard, (2) when the declarant, although not legally unavailable, can be brought to the hearing only through great difficulty or expense, or (3) when the declarant’s presence would pose a risk of harm (including, in appropriate circumstances, mental or emotional harm) to the declarant.
Authority:
People v. Shepherd (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1199
People v. Winson (1981) 29 Cal.3d 711, 713-714
People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1159-1160
Ninth Holding:
First, to be testimonial the statement must be made with some degree of formality or solemnity. Second, the statement is testimonial only if its primary purpose pertains in some fashion to a criminal prosecution. Statements which merely record objective facts or observations of fact are generally not testimonial in nature. Nor are official records which serve purposes other than to aid a criminal investigation.
Authority:
People v. Dungo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 608, 619-621
People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569, 582
Tenth Holding:
In contrast to the good cause standard for testimonial hearsay, documentary hearsay evidence may be admitted at a probation or parole revocation proceeding if there are sufficient indicia of reliability regarding the proffered material. The right of confrontation is not absolute; revocation proceedings should be flexible enough to allow for conventional substitutes for live testimony (including affidavits, depositions, and documentary evidence); and various federal courts had demonstrated a willingness to consider inadmissible hearsay evidence when it is accompanied by a reasonable indica of reliability.
Authority:
People v. Maki (1985) 39 Cal.3d 707, 709
Eleventh Holding:
Whereas the need for confrontation is particularly important where the evidence is testimonial, because of the opportunity for observation of the witness’s demeanor, the witness’s demeanor is not a significant factor in evaluating foundational testimony relating to the admission of evidence such as laboratory reports, invoices, or receipts. This is because, often, the purpose of such foundational testimony is simply to authenticate the document, and the author, signator or custodian of the document may not even be able to recall from memory the specific contents of the writing.
Authority:
People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1157
Twelfth Holding:
In determining whether the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence prejudiced a defendant, we apply the “harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” standard as the error is of federal constitutional dimension.
Authority:
People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1161
Thirteenth Holding:
Post-Release Community Supervision (PRCS) was created by the Legislature in 2011 as an alternative to parole for non-serious, nonviolent felonies. It is similar, but not identical to parole.
Authority:
People v. Gutierrez (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 393, 399
