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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whitman v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2019Code, § 872, subd. (b); Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063 , 1072–1074 (Whitman).) While Penal Code section 872 permits a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing on the basis of hearsay statements related by a police officer with certain qualifications and experience, the ballot measure that enacted this hearsay exception “did not purport to create a similar exception for the multiple hearsay rule of Evidence Code section 1201.” (Whitman, at p. 1074; see id. at 16 pp. 1073–1074 [testimony by a noninvestigating officer or “reader” that merely recites the contents of repo 2019Code, § 872, subd. (b); Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063 , 1072–1074 (Whitman).) While Penal Code section 872 permits a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing on the basis of hearsay statements related by a police officer with certain qualifications and experience, the ballot measure that enacted this hearsay exception “did not purport to create a similar exception for the multiple hearsay rule of Evidence Code section 1201.” (Whitman, at p. 1074; see id. at 16 pp. 1073–1074 [testimony by a noninvestigating officer or “reader” that merely recites the contents of repo | 1 | 5 |
People v. Wimberlygreen2 sentences1993(See Tu v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1622 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] [Second Dist., Div. One]; Shannon v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 676, 682 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 47 ] [Second Dist., Div. Seven]; People v. Wimberly (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 439, 445-447 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ] [same].) Accordingly, consistent with *1627 the customary rules of appellate review after the grant of a section 995 motion (see Montez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 583-584), we review the admissible, nonmultiple hearsay evidence at the preliminary hearing in the present case to determine if the 1993(See Tu v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1622 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] [Second Dist., Div. One]; Shannon v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 676, 682 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 47 ] [Second Dist., Div. Seven]; People v. Wimberly (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 439, 445-447 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ] [same].) Accordingly, consistent with *1627 the customary rules of appellate review after the grant of a section 995 motion (see Montez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 583-584), we review the admissible, nonmultiple hearsay evidence at the preliminary hearing in the present case to determine if the | 1 | 1 |
Shannon v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1993(See Tu v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1622 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] [Second Dist., Div. One]; Shannon v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 676, 682 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 47 ] [Second Dist., Div. Seven]; People v. Wimberly (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 439, 445-447 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ] [same].) Accordingly, consistent with *1627 the customary rules of appellate review after the grant of a section 995 motion (see Montez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 583-584), we review the admissible, nonmultiple hearsay evidence at the preliminary hearing in the present case to determine if the 1993(See Tu v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1622 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] [Second Dist., Div. One]; Shannon v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 676, 682 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 47 ] [Second Dist., Div. Seven]; People v. Wimberly (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 439, 445-447 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ] [same].) Accordingly, consistent with *1627 the customary rules of appellate review after the grant of a section 995 motion (see Montez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 583-584), we review the admissible, nonmultiple hearsay evidence at the preliminary hearing in the present case to determine if the | 1 | 1 |
Thang Quy Tu v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1993(See Tu v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1622 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] [Second Dist., Div. One]; Shannon v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 676, 682 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 47 ] [Second Dist., Div. Seven]; People v. Wimberly (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 439, 445-447 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ] [same].) Accordingly, consistent with *1627 the customary rules of appellate review after the grant of a section 995 motion (see Montez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 583-584), we review the admissible, nonmultiple hearsay evidence at the preliminary hearing in the present case to determine if the 1993(See Tu v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1622 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 758 ] [Second Dist., Div. One]; Shannon v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 676, 682 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 47 ] [Second Dist., Div. Seven]; People v. Wimberly (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 439, 445-447 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 800 ] [same].) Accordingly, consistent with *1627 the customary rules of appellate review after the grant of a section 995 motion (see Montez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 583-584), we review the admissible, nonmultiple hearsay evidence at the preliminary hearing in the present case to determine if the | 1 | 1 |
Montez v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1993It is noteworthy that although Proposition 115 created an exception to the basic hearsay rule ... the measure did not purport to create a similar exception for the multiple hearsay rule . . . .” (Id. at p. 1074.) In Whitman , the Supreme Court’s proscription against use of readers and multiple hearsay avoided constitutional questions regarding the reliability of evidence and a defendant’s inability to “meaningfully cross-examine the testifying officer regarding the circumstances under which the out-of-court statement was made.” ( 54 Cal.3d at p. 1074 .) Proposition 115 therefore, as interprete 1993It is noteworthy that although Proposition 115 created an exception to the basic hearsay rule ... the measure did not purport to create a similar exception for the multiple hearsay rule . . . .” (Id. at p. 1074.) In Whitman , the Supreme Court’s proscription against use of readers and multiple hearsay avoided constitutional questions regarding the reliability of evidence and a defendant’s inability to “meaningfully cross-examine the testifying officer regarding the circumstances under which the out-of-court statement was made.” ( 54 Cal.3d at p. 1074 .) Proposition 115 therefore, as interprete | 1 | 1 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences1992(See, e.g., People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 259 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 667P. 2d 149] [construing Prop. 8, ‘The Victims’ Bill of Rights’ initiative measure, to avoid constitutional doubts].) As discussed below, we believe that the latter, more limited form of hearsay evidence satisfies federal requirements of reliability (see Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 63-65 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-607 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ]), and thus properly may be admitted at preliminary hearings despite the defendant’s inability to confront and cross-examine the declarant witness or victim. 1992(See, e.g., People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 259 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 667P. 2d 149] [construing Prop. 8, ‘The Victims’ Bill of Rights’ initiative measure, to avoid constitutional doubts].) As discussed below, we believe that the latter, more limited form of hearsay evidence satisfies federal requirements of reliability (see Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 63-65 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-607 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ]), and thus properly may be admitted at preliminary hearings despite the defendant’s inability to confront and cross-examine the declarant witness or victim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences1992(See, e.g., People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 259 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 667P. 2d 149] [construing Prop. 8, ‘The Victims’ Bill of Rights’ initiative measure, to avoid constitutional doubts].) As discussed below, we believe that the latter, more limited form of hearsay evidence satisfies federal requirements of reliability (see Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 63-65 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-607 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ]), and thus properly may be admitted at preliminary hearings despite the defendant’s inability to confront and cross-examine the declarant witness or victim. 1992(See, e.g., People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 259 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 667P. 2d 149] [construing Prop. 8, ‘The Victims’ Bill of Rights’ initiative measure, to avoid constitutional doubts].) As discussed below, we believe that the latter, more limited form of hearsay evidence satisfies federal requirements of reliability (see Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 63-65 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 605-607 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ]), and thus properly may be admitted at preliminary hearings despite the defendant’s inability to confront and cross-examine the declarant witness or victim. | 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 v. Torres
green
2 sentences2002In People v. Torres (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1248 , 262 Cal.Rptr. 323 , for example, a criminal defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation, but because he spoke only Spanish and the interrogating officer spoke only English, the interview *34 took place with the assistance of a translator. 2002In People v. Torres (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 1248 , 262 Cal.Rptr. 323 , for example, a criminal defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation, but because he spoke only Spanish and the interrogating officer spoke only English, the interview *34 took place with the assistance of a translator. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.