California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Kozee-Stoltz, D069073 (Cal. App. 2019):
A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to confront prosecution witnesses, but the right is not absolute. (People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 892.) "An exception exists when a witness is unavailable and, at a previous court proceeding against the same defendant, has given testimony that was subject to cross-examination." (Ibid.) Under this exception, the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness may be admitted at trial without violating a defendant's confrontation right. (People v. Herrera (2010) 49 Cal.4th 613, 621; Evid. Code, 1291, subd. (a)(2).) A witness is unavailable when the witness is absent from the hearing and the proponent of the witness's testimony has exercised reasonable diligence, but has been unable to procure the witness's attendance by the court's process. (Evid. Code, 240, subd. (a)(5).) We independently review the prosecution's claim of good faith and reasonable diligence. (People v. Herrera, at p. 623.) Factors we consider in determining whether the prosecutor has shown reasonable diligence include the timeliness of the search, the importance of the
Page 7
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.