What evidence may a trial court consider at a bail hearing when evaluating whether the facts are evident or the presumption great with respect to a qualifying charged offense, and whether there is a substantial likelihood the person?s release would result in great bodily harm to others? (Cal. Const., art. I, § 12, subd. (b).)

Held: The superior court is not limited to considering evidence that would be admissible at a criminal trial when determining whether to deny bail pursuant to article I, section 12(b) of the California Constitution. Petitioner was arrested after DNA from a rape 30 years prior was found to match petitioner and the trial court denied bail pursuant to section 12(b). The California Supreme Court held that the superior court is not limited to considering evidence that would be admissible at a criminal trial. However, a section 12(b) determination must be guided by a duty to ensure that the evidence it considers is reliable, not merely general assertions by the prosecution regarding what the evidence is likely to show, given an arrestee’s fundamental right to pretrial liberty. In this case, the evidence supporting the trial court’s no-bail determination does not establish that the court conducted a proper evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence of petitioner’s guilt, rather than simply presuming the truth of the charges, and remand is necessary.

Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the court.