In People v. Gray, the Supreme Court today holds that evidence falling within the spontaneous-statement exception to the hearsay rule is not automatically admissible at a probation revocation hearing. Instead, courts must “balance defendant’s confrontation interests against any countervailing interests of the government.” That balancing wasn’t done in the case, where revocation was based on a finding the probationer had inflicted corporal injury upon a person in a dating relationship even though the probationer’s girlfriend had partially recanted her incriminating spontaneous statements that were admitted in evidence.
The court remands for the Court of Appeal to determine, after balancing the relevant interests, whether the spontaneous statements were admissible and, if they weren’t, whether there was prejudice.
The court’s opinion by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero says that, even though “ ‘the full panoply of rights due a defendant in [a criminal] proceeding does not apply’ ” in probation or parole revocation hearings, “due process protects a probationer’s right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses absent a showing of good cause.” “Good cause,” the court concludes, is not categorically established by showing a statement is spontaneous, but is subject to a “comprehensive, holistic approach and no single factor is dispositive.” The court says that “a blanket rule of admissibility for testimonial spontaneous statements” would be “inconsistent with this court’s precedent and that of the United States Supreme Court.”
Signing the court’s opinion, but issuing a concurrence is Justice Joshua Groban. He writes “to emphasize that, as part of this balancing test . . . , the potential for emotional or mental harm to the witness can be a relevant factor bearing on the state’s demonstration of good cause.” He notes that, “although not all alleged victims of domestic violence are similarly situated, there are often unique challenges associated with procuring victim testimony in domestic violence cases.”
The court reverses the published opinion of the Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal. It also resolves a conflict between People v. Liggins (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 55 from the First District, Division Four, and the Third District’s decision in People v. Stanphill (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 61. The court disapproves Stanphill.
