Skip to content
Name: People v. Palacios (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 942
Case #: B324572
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/03/2024
Summary

At defendant’s PC 1172.6(d)(3) hearing, the trial court did not err by declining to consider whether defendant’s confession was voluntary before admitting it into evidence, where the voluntariness issue was not raised in the underlying trial. Section 1172.6(d)(3) provides a general rule that admissibility of evidence at a resentencing hearing is “governed by the Evidence Code,” but it exempts evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial that is “admissible under current law.” The court agreed with People v. Davenport (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1150 that the most natural reading of the phrase “admissible under current law” is that the basis for admission of testimony at the hearing or trial in which it was previously admitted must remain a valid basis for admitting the testimony under current law. As defendant did not identify any grounds for excluding the confession today that were not available at the time of trial, the confession was properly admitted into evidence at his section 1172.6(d)(3) hearing. The court further concluded that due process did not require the trial court to conduct additional analysis of the voluntariness issue.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B324572.PDF