Court of Appeal Justice Brian Hoffstadt writes in today’s Daily Journal about the Supreme Court’s August decision in People v. Gray (2023) 15 Cal.5th 152 (see here). The Supreme Court reversed the opinion that Justice Hoffstadt authored in the case for the Second District, Division Two. The Daily Journal article — titled “Gray areas” — discusses the decision at length and it identifies problems seen in the high court ruling.
The Supreme Court held that evidence falling within the spontaneous-statement exception to the hearsay rule is not automatically admissible at a probation revocation hearing, but that admissibility is subject to a balancing of the “defendant’s confrontation interests against any countervailing interests of the government.” Justice Hoffstadt says that the decision “has the potential to significantly dilute the predictability that comes from the brighter lines delineated by the Evidence Code itself.”
Division Two originally affirmed a probation violation ruling, concluding a hearsay statement that would not have been admissible at a criminal trial because of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause was admissible at the probation violation hearing. On remand from the Supreme Court, Division Two in an unpublished opinion — again written by Justice Hoffstadt — reversed and in turn remanded the case to the superior court “to permit the parties to introduce evidence bearing on the factors to be balanced under Gray and to exercise its discretion in balancing those factors.”