CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay
......Prop. 115
.........In General
8 Cards On This Topic:

Cal. Const. cannot afford greater rights to criminal Ds (e.g., re confrontation of witnesses) than U.S. Constitution; this provision subsequently ruled invalid.

Hearsay admissible at preliminary hearings.

Hearsay and multiple hearsay statements of sworn qualified law enforcement officer admissible at prelim.

As admission of hearsay statements at prelim. hearing does not violate Confrontation Clause, Prop. 115 does not violate Sixth Amend.

Detective's hearsay testimony at D's prelim. examination as to nontestifying co-D's statements implicating D admissible under Whitman and Proposition 115.

Prop. 115 as a whole does not violate "single subject" rule of Calif. Const. and is constitutional. However, amendment to Cal. Const., art. I §24 is invalid, unconstitutional "revision" of state constitution.

Prop. 115 provisions permitting hearsay by peace officer at prelim does not violate confrontation clause, separation of powers doctrine or due process clause of state and federal constitutions.

Insufficient offer of proof supports magistrate's refusal to allow D to call V to testify; scope of relevant defense evidence narrowed by Prop 115.