Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 California opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ottogreen2 sentences2025(U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; accord, People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [“There is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings . . . .”].) To the extent Hammond instead seeks to raise a due process claim (see People v. Otto, at p. 214), we find no error in the court’s determination that requiring his 12-year-old daughter to testify was unnecessary to its ruling, which, as discussed, was amply supported by other evidence in the record. 2024Counsel stated she could present “the record from 4 The portion of Sanchez addressing the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses does not apply to civil proceedings because “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings.” (People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 .) 11 the City.” But counsel did not identify that record or produce a copy of it. | 7 | 13 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2012(Otto, at p. 209.) Due process in a civil proceeding “is not measured by the rights accorded a defendant in criminal proceedings, but by the standard applicable to civil proceedings.” (People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 136, 154 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 481 ].) In civil proceedings, “ ‘[d]ue process requires only that the procedure adopted comport with fundamental principles of fairness and decency. 2012(Otto, at p. 209.) Due process in a civil proceeding “is not measured by the rights accorded a defendant in criminal proceedings, but by the standard applicable to civil proceedings.” (People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 136, 154 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 481 ].) In civil proceedings, “ ‘[d]ue process requires only that the procedure adopted comport with fundamental principles of fairness and decency. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Frasergreen2 sentences2008(People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327 , 26 P.3d 1061 ] (Otto) [reliable hearsay statements concerning the predicate offenses are admissible in an SVPA proceeding; “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings”]; People v. Fraser (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1446 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 ] (Fraser) [“because a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA has a nonpunitive purpose and is therefore not equivalent to a criminal prosecution, we determine that there is no Sixth Amendment right to self-representation i 2008(People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327 , 26 P.3d 1061 ] (Otto) [reliable hearsay statements concerning the predicate offenses are admissible in an SVPA proceeding; “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings”]; People v. Fraser (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1446 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 ] (Fraser) [“because a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA has a nonpunitive purpose and is therefore not equivalent to a criminal prosecution, we determine that there is no Sixth Amendment right to self-representation i | 1 | 1 |
People v. Angulogreen2 sentences2008(People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327 , 26 P.3d 1061 ] (Otto) [reliable hearsay statements concerning the predicate offenses are admissible in an SVPA proceeding; “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings”]; People v. Fraser (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1446 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 ] (Fraser) [“because a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA has a nonpunitive purpose and is therefore not equivalent to a criminal prosecution, we determine that there is no Sixth Amendment right to self-representation i 2008(People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327 , 26 P.3d 1061 ] (Otto) [reliable hearsay statements concerning the predicate offenses are admissible in an SVPA proceeding; “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings”]; People v. Fraser (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1446 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 ] (Fraser) [“because a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA has a nonpunitive purpose and is therefore not equivalent to a criminal prosecution, we determine that there is no Sixth Amendment right to self-representation i | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2007Although “[tjhere is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings, . . . such a right does exist under the due process clause.” (Otto, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 214 .) “[T]he right to confront and to cross-examine [under the due process clause] is not absolute'and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests [,] . . . [b]ut its denial or significant diminution calls into question the ultimate 1 “integrity of the fact-finding process” ’ and requires that the competing interest be closely examined. [Citation.]” (Chamber 2007Although “[tjhere is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings, . . . such a right does exist under the due process clause.” (Otto, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 214 .) “[T]he right to confront and to cross-examine [under the due process clause] is not absolute'and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests [,] . . . [b]ut its denial or significant diminution calls into question the ultimate 1 “integrity of the fact-finding process” ’ and requires that the competing interest be closely examined. [Citation.]” (Chamber | 1 | 1 |
Hubbart v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2005(Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1142, 1171-1172 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ].) “There is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings, but such a right does exist under the due process clause. [Citation.]” (Otto, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 214 .) *1299 In Otto , the state Supreme Court found no due process violation. 2005(Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1142, 1171-1172 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ].) “There is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings, but such a right does exist under the due process clause. [Citation.]” (Otto, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 214 .) *1299 In Otto , the state Supreme Court found no due process violation. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Malinda S.red2 sentences2001There is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings, but such a right does exist under the due process clause. ( Malinda S., supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 383, fn. 16 , 272 Cal.Rptr. 787 , 795 P.2d 1244 ["both the federal and state Constitutions confine the express right of confrontation to criminal defendants"].) Here, Otto had the opportunity to cross-examine any prosecution witness who testified. 2001There is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings, but such a right does exist under the due process clause. ( Malinda S., supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 383, fn. 16 , 272 Cal.Rptr. 787 , 795 P.2d 1244 ["both the federal and state Constitutions confine the express right of confrontation to criminal defendants"].) Here, Otto had the opportunity to cross-examine any prosecution witness who testified. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People Ex Rel. Reisig v. Acuna
green
2 sentences2024Reisig v. Acuna (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1, 32 ; People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [“[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings”].) Since this is not a criminal prosecution, the confrontation clause is inapplicable. 2024Reisig v. Acuna (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1, 32 ; People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [“[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings”].) Since this is not a criminal prosecution, the confrontation clause is inapplicable. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Landau
green
2 sentences2017(Landau, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 878 .) DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed. 2017(Landau, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 878 .) 33 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
P. v.Roa
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Roa, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th 428 .) The portion of Sanchez addressing the sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against you does not apply because “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings.” (People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 .) However, an SVP defendant does have 1 confrontation rights under the due process clause. 2021(People v. Roa, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th 428 .) The portion of Sanchez addressing the sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against you does not apply because “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings.” (People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 .) However, an SVP defendant does have 1 confrontation rights under the due process clause. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Whitman v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2019In Sanchez, the California Supreme Court considered the admissibility of expert evidence and the propriety of an expert relating case-specific hearsay under the rules of evidence. 7 The Whitman court observed that allowing testimony from a noninvestigating officer who has no knowledge of the circumstances in which the out-of-court statements were made risks introducing unreliable evidence at a preliminary hearing and would raise constitutional concerns over the criminal defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. ( Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1073–1074.) Although proceeding | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008(People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327 , 26 P.3d 1061 ] (Otto) [reliable hearsay statements concerning the predicate offenses are admissible in an SVPA proceeding; “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings”]; People v. Fraser (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1446 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 ] (Fraser) [“because a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA has a nonpunitive purpose and is therefore not equivalent to a criminal prosecution, we determine that there is no Sixth Amendment right to self-representation i 2008(People v. Otto (2001) 26 Cal.4th 200, 214 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 327 , 26 P.3d 1061 ] (Otto) [reliable hearsay statements concerning the predicate offenses are admissible in an SVPA proceeding; “[t]here is no right to confrontation under the state and federal confrontation clause in civil proceedings”]; People v. Fraser (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1430, 1446 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 424 ] (Fraser) [“because a civil commitment proceeding under the SVPA has a nonpunitive purpose and is therefore not equivalent to a criminal prosecution, we determine that there is no Sixth Amendment right to self-representation i | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.