Confront/Cross-exam

Name: People v. Maldonado
Case #: B340015
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 08/11/2026

Appellant’s absence from a pretrial competency hearing did not constitute reversible constitutional error. Where defense counsel waived a live hearing and submitted on an expert’s report opining that appellant was competent, appellant’s absence did not prejudice his rights to cross-examination or due process. Alternatively, any such error was harmless. A concurring opinion would find no constitutional error and would not reach the issue of prejudice.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gomez
Case #: D083403
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/03/2025

Trial court erred by finding an eight-year-old alleged sex offense victim was unavailable after mother told the court testifying would be too traumatic for the child. Mother’s claim was insufficient to establish medical unavailability (EC 240(a)(3)) and “reasonable diligence” by the prosecution (EC 240(a)(5)) was not shown where mother never “unequivocally” rejected accommodations or stated she would defy a court order to produce daughter. The admission of the daughter’s preliminary hearing testimony required reversal of both counts naming her as victim and a count against a second child where the daughter provided propensity corroboration (CALCRIM 1191B).

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jasso
Case #: S179454
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 04/03/2025

Death penalty affirmance in robbery-murder. Non-capital holdings:

(1) No double hearsay error when officer testified to co-defendant’s confession made to a friend, as related by the friend; confession was sufficiently self-inculpatory to qualify as statement against interest (EC 1230) and trial counsel’s failure to object that friend’s statement to police also lacked valid exception forfeited error. Backup ineffective assistance of counsel claim rejected and more properly raised via habeas.

(2) Erroneous admission of unrelated hearsay under EC 1230 harmless under Watson.

(3) Trial counsel not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object when prosecutor's leading questions to a witness who refused to testify allegedly…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hall
Case #: F087187
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/05/2024

The statements of an 11- and 8-year-old were properly admitted under hearsay exceptions, and admission of the statements did not violate the Sixth Amendment as they were not testimonial under Crawford. The court also holds that appellant had forfeited any Crawford/Sixth Amendment claims by his intentional involvement in the children’s absence at trial.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ayala (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 62
Case #: D082754
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/29/2024

The prosecution did not exercise due diligence, and therefore should not have been permitted to admit the former testimony of an absent witness, when the search for the witness was untimely and the witness was essential to the prosecution’s case. Defendants Ayala and Ramirez were charged with murder. They had never met the victim before, but the victim had been threatening Breanna S., who had just begun staying in Ayala’s R.V. Breanna had testified for the People at the preliminary hearing, but had gone missing at least two years before trial. Two weeks before trial, the People began an unsuccessful search…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Castaneda-Prado (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1260
Case #: A164897
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 08/30/2023

The exclusion of impeachment evidence that showed a crucial victim witness was biased violated defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness against him. When Doe 1 and Doe 2 were 16 years old, they accused defendant (a close family friend) of inappropriately touching them when they were in elementary school. A jury convicted defendant of five counts of committing a lewd act on a child, as well as allegations that the charges involved multiple victims and substantial sexual conduct. He appealed, contending the trial court erred by excluding evidence Doe 2 believed that, by accusing defendant of sexual molestation, she…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gray (2023) 15 Cal.5th 152
Case #: S269237
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 08/14/2023

Opinion by: Chief Justice Guerrero (unanimous decision). Justice Groban also filed a concurring opinion.

In probation revocation hearings, due process requires that trial courts determine on a case-by-case basis whether spontaneous hearsay statements are admissible. Gray was charged with inflicting corporal injury upon N.S., and violating his probation. An officer’s body-worn camera captured N.S.’s statements regarding the incident. N.S. subsequently recanted and failed to appear at Gray’s criminal trial. N.S.’s statements on the video were held inadmissible under the confrontation clause, and the criminal proceeding was dismissed. However, the trial court found a violation of probation, relying on N.S.’s statements on…

View Full Summary
Name: Samia v. United States (2023) __ U.S. __ [143 S.Ct. 2004]
Case #: 22-196
Court: US Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 06/23/2023

Majority opinion: Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined.
Concurring opinion: Justice Barrett joined the majority opinion in part and filed a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Dissenting opinions: Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.

The confrontation clause does not bar the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession where (1) the confession has been modified to avoid directly identifying the codefendant and (2) the court offers a limiting instruction.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Coulthard (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 743
Case #: H049755
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/30/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 04/19/2023

To convict defendant of child abduction, the prosecution was not required to prove that the foreign court order or child custody order used to prove defendant’s guilt had previously been registered in California. Defendant’s daughter, M.C., lived with her mother in the United Kingdom, per a UK custody order. Contrary to the visitation terms of the custody order, defendant refused to return M.C. to her mother following M.C.’s visit with him in the U.S. M.C.’s mother obtained a UK emergency return order, which was served on defendant by the Campbell Police Department. Defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted of child…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bharth
Case #: C090014
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 68 Cal.App.5th 801
Opinion Date: 09/09/2021

No violation of defendant's Confrontation Clause rights occurred when the trial court allowed the rape victim to turn in her chair and face the jury.  The central concern of the confrontation clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact. This concern is satisfied when the witness: (1) is physically present for his or her testimony; (2) testifies under oath; (3) is subject to cross-examination; and (4) may have his or her demeanor observed by the trier of…

View Full Summary