Whitman?v.?Superior?Court?(People)?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1063?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?160;?820?P.2d?262 [No.?S018847.?Dec?9,?1991.] THOMAS?PAUL?WHITMAN,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?SANTA?CLARA?COUNTY,?Respondent;?THE?PEOPLE,?Real?Party?in?Interest. (Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?141525,?Nathan?D.?Mihara,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Panelli,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.?concurring?in?the?judgment.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.) COUNSEL Stuart?Rappaport,?Public?Defender,?Susan?R.?Bernardini?and?Barbara?B.?Fargo,?Deputy?Public?Defenders,?for?Petitioner. Wilbur?F.?Littlefield,?Public?Defender?(Los?Angeles),?Laurence?M.?Sarnoff?and?Albert?J.?Menaster,?Deputy?Public?Defenders,?Gary?M.?Madinach?and?Madeline?McDowell?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Petitioner. No?Appearance?for?Respondent. Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorney?General,?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Clifford?K.?Thompson,?Jr.,?Laurence?K.?Sullivan?and?Joan?Killeen?Haller,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Real?Party?In?Interest. Dennis?Kottmeier,?District?Attorney?(San?Bernadino),?Joseph?A.?Burns,?Deputy?District?Attorney,?Kent?S.?Scheidegger?and?Charles?L.?Hobson?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Party?in?Interest. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. In?this?case,?we?resolve?some?issues?presented?by?the?adoption?in?June?1990?of?an?initiative?measure?designated?on?the?ballot?as?Proposition?115?and?entitled?the?”Crime?Victims?Justice?Reform?Act.”?Petitioner?[54?Cal.3d?1068]?herein?raises?various?challenges?under?the?federal?and?state?Constitutions?to?the?provisions?of?the?measure?that?authorize?the?admission?of?hearsay?evidence?at?preliminary?hearings?in?criminal?cases.?(See?also?Izazaga?v.?Superior?Court,?ante,?p.?356?[285?Cal.Rptr.?231,?815?P.2d?304]?[challenge?to?reciprocal?discovery?provisions?of?Prop.?115];?Tapia?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?282?[279?Cal.Rptr.?592,?807?P.2d?434]?[challenge?to?retroactive?application?of?Prop.?115];?Raven?v.?Deukmejian?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?336?[276?Cal.Rptr.?326,?801?P.2d?1077]?[single-subject?and?revision?challenges?to?Prop.?115].)?He?also?contests?the?sufficiency?and?competency?of?the?evidence?presented?at?his?preliminary?hearing. As?will?appear,?we?conclude?that,?properly?construed?and?applied,?the?hearsay?provisions?of?Proposition?115?are?constitutionally?valid.?We?also?conclude,?however,?that?the?evidence?admitted?at?petitioner’s?preliminary?hearing,?consisting?entirely?of?hearsay?testimony?by?a?noninvestigating?officer?lacking?any?personal?knowledge?of?the?case,?was?insufficient?and?incompetent?to?constitute?probable?cause?to?bind?petitioner?over?for?trial,?and?that?his?motion?to?dismiss?the?charges?should?have?been?granted. Facts Petitioner?was?charged?with?one?felony?count?of?driving?under?the?influence?of?alcohol?and/or?drugs?with?three?or?more?prior?similar?convictions?(Veh.?Code,????23152,?subd.?(a),?23175),?one?felony?count?of?driving?with?a?blood-alcohol?level?of?0.08?percent?or?more?(id.,????23152,?subd.?(b),?23175),?as?well?as?misdemeanor?counts?of?driving?with?a?suspended?or?revoked?license?(id.,???14601.2,?subd.?(a)),?and?being?under?the?influence?of?methamphetamine?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???11550).?These?offenses?were?alleged?to?have?occurred?on?August?8,?1990.?A?preliminary?hearing?was?held?on?September?19,?1990,?leading?to?the?filing?of?an?information?containing?these?charges. At?the?hearing,?the?People?called?only?a?single?witness,?Officer?Bruce?Alexander,?who?was?not?one?of?the?arresting?or?investigating?officers?and?who?had?no?direct,?personal?knowledge?of?petitioner’s?alleged?offenses.?Over?petitioner’s?continuing?objection?to?the?use?of?hearsay?evidence,?Alexander?attested?to?his?eight?years?of?employment?as?a?police?officer,?and?thereupon?recounted?to?the?magistrate?various?entries?made?in?the?report?of?the?investigating?officer,?Officer?Navin.?Alexander?confirmed?that?he?had?never?discussed?Navin’s?report?with?that?officer,?was?not?personally?acquainted?with?Navin,?and?first?became?aware?of?Navin’s?report,?and?of?the?case?against?petitioner,?on?the?morning?of?the?preliminary?hearing?after?the?district?attorney?handed?him?a?copy?of?Navin’s?report.?[54?Cal.3d?1069] In?response?to?the?prosecutor’s?questioning,?Alexander?indicated?that,?according?to?Navin’s?report,?on?August?8,?while?in?a?marked?patrol?car,?Navin?saw?a?1969?Chevrolet?traveling?eastbound?on?Cherry?Avenue.?Navin?heard?someone?shout?and?saw?the?driver?of?the?Chevrolet?lean?out?the?window?to?raise?his?right?fist.?Navin?watched?as?a?white?Ford?quickly?passed?the?Chevrolet.?Navin?paced?the?Chevrolet,?which?was?traveling?50?miles?per?hour?in?a?40?miles?per?hour?zone.?Navin?thereupon?made?a?traffic?stop. Alexander?further?testified?that,?according?to?Navin’s?report,?the?driver?of?the?car?identified?himself?as?Thomas?Paul?Whitman.?Among?other?things,?Navin?noticed?the?strong?odor?of?alcohol,?bloodshot?eyes,?and?dilated?pupils.?The?driver’s?mood?changed?from?passive?to?belligerent,?leading?Navin?to?believe?that?the?driver?might?be?under?the?influence?of?drugs.?Alexander?continued?his?”testimony,”?relating,?according?to?Navin,?that?the?driver?successfully?completed?the?finger-dexterity?test?and?balanced?on?one?foot,?but?swayed?when?asked?to?walk?a?straight?line.?Believing?the?driver?was?under?the?influence,?Navin?transported?him?to?the?station?where?a?blood?test?was?administered.?Counsel?stipulated?that?a?blood?test?revealed?a?blood-?alcohol?level?of?0.08?percent?and?was?positive?for?the?presence?of?methamphetamine. Thereupon,?Alexander?was?permitted?to?state?his?opinion,?based?solely?on?the?information?revealed?in?Navin’s?report,?that?petitioner?had?been?under?the?influence?of?alcohol?and?”perhaps?some?type?of?stimulant.” Defense?counsel?moved?to?strike?all?of?Alexander’s?direct?testimony?for?lack?of?proper?foundation?regarding?Navin’s?qualifications?as?a?police?officer.?The?magistrate?denied?the?motion,?after?permitting?Alexander?to?opine?that?because?Navin’s?badge?number?was?considerably?lower?than?his,?Navin?probably?had?12?years’?experience?as?a?police?officer. On?cross-examination,?Alexander?admitted?he?did?not?know?the?time?or?circumstances?of?the?preparation?of?Navin’s?report,?or?the?various?tests?conducted?to?determine?petitioner’s?sobriety.?Additionally,?Alexander?was?unable?to?explain?certain?discrepancies?and?omissions?in?the?report.?Counsel?elicited?the?fact?that?although?Navin’s?report?indicated?petitioner’s?eyes?were?brown,?in?fact?they?are?green. Despite?petitioner’s?objections?and?his?argument?that?Alexander?could?not?personally?identify?him?as?the?suspect?stopped?by?Navin,?the?magistrate?held?petitioner?to?answer?on?the?counts?charged.?The?magistrate?noted?that?the?description?of?petitioner?contained?in?Navin’s?report?closely?matched?the?description?in?the?records?of?the?Department?of?Motor?Vehicles,?which?was?also?placed?in?evidence.?[54?Cal.3d?1070] Thereafter,?petitioner?moved?the?superior?court?to?dismiss?the?information?(Pen.?Code,???995),?on?the?ground?that?the?evidence?elicited?at?the?preliminary?hearing?was?incompetent?and?insufficient?to?establish?probable?cause.?The?motion?was?denied,?and?the?Court?of?Appeal?summarily?denied?petitioner’s?application?for?mandate.?We?issued?an?alternative?writ?of?mandate?to?consider?the?important?constitutional?and?interpretive?questions?presented. Petitioner?raises?a?variety?of?arguments?regarding?the?admissibility,?and?constitutional?propriety,?of?Officer?Alexander’s?hearsay?testimony.?Before?we?consider?these?contentions,?we?first?review?the?new?constitutional?and?statutory?hearsay?provisions?added?by?Proposition?115. Constitutional?and?Statutory?Provisions Proposition?115?added?both?constitutional?and?statutory?language?pertinent?to?our?present?inquiry.?Section?30,?subdivision?(b),?is?added?to?article?I?of?the?state?Constitution,?declaring?hearsay?evidence?admissible?at?preliminary?hearings?in?criminal?cases,?as?may?be?provided?by?law.?(“In?order?to?protect?victims?and?witnesses?in?criminal?cases,?hearsay?evidence?shall?be?admissible?at?preliminary?hearings,?as?prescribed?by?the?Legislature?or?by?the?people?through?the?initiative?process.”) In?addition,?the?measure?amends?section?872,?subdivision?(b),?of?the?Penal?Code?to?provide?that?a?probable?cause?determination?at?a?preliminary?hearing?may?be?based?on?hearsay?statements?related?by?a?police?officer?with?certain?qualifications?and?experience.?(“Notwithstanding?Section?1200?of?the?Evidence?Code?[(the?hearsay?rule)],?the?finding?of?probable?cause?may?be?based?in?whole?or?in?part?upon?the?sworn?testimony?of?a?law?enforcement?officer?relating?the?statements?of?declarants?made?out?of?court?offered?for?the?truth?of?the?matter?asserted.?Any?law?enforcement?officer?testifying?as?to?hearsay?statements?shall?either?have?five?years?of?law?enforcement?experience?or?have?completed?a?training?course?certified?by?the?Commission?on?Peace?Officer?Standards?and?Training?which?includes?training?in?the?investigation?and?reporting?of?cases?and?testifying?at?preliminary?hearings.”) Additionally,?section?1203.1?is?added?to?the?Evidence?Code?to?provide?a?preliminary?hearing?exception?to?the?general?requirement?that?all?hearsay?declarants?be?made?available?for?cross-examination.?(“Section?1203?is?not?applicable?if?the?hearsay?statement?is?offered?at?a?preliminary?examination,?as?provided?in?Section?872?of?the?Penal?Code.”) Further,?Penal?Code?section?866,?subdivision?(a),?is?amended?to?give?the?magistrate?discretion?to?limit?the?defendant’s?right?to?call?witnesses?on?the?[54?Cal.3d?1071]?defendant’s?behalf.?(“The?magistrate?shall?not?permit?the?testimony?of?any?defense?witness?unless?the?offer?of?proof?discloses?to?the?satisfaction?of?the?magistrate,?in?his?or?her?discretion,?that?the?testimony?of?that?witness,?if?believed,?would?be?reasonably?likely?to?establish?an?affirmative?defense,?negate?an?element?of?a?crime?charged,?or?impeach?the?testimony?of?a?prosecution?witness?or?the?statement?of?a?declarant?testified?to?by?a?prosecution?witness.”) Finally,?Penal?code?section?866,?subdivision?(b),?explains?that?”It?is?the?purpose?of?a?preliminary?examination?to?establish?whether?there?exists?probable?cause?to?believe?that?the?defendant?has?committed?a?felony.?The?examination?shall?not?be?used?for?purposes?of?discovery.” We?note?that?our?discussion?herein?relates?solely?to?proceedings?initiated?by?complaint?and?information?rather?than?by?indictment,?because?under?Proposition?115,?”If?a?felony?is?prosecuted?by?indictment,?there?shall?be?no?postindictment?preliminary?hearing.”?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???14.1.)?The?validity?of?this?provision?of?the?measure?is?presently?before?this?court?in?Bowens?v.?Superior?Court,?SO19774.fn.?* Discussion As?previously?indicated,?in?addition?to?contesting?the?sufficiency?of?the?evidence?elicited?at?the?preliminary?hearing,?petitioner?raises?various?constitutional?challenges?to?the?foregoing?provisions?of?Proposition?115.?He?argues?that?the?use?of?hearsay?testimony?without?confrontation?or?cross-?examination?of?the?declarants?violates?his?federal?Sixth?Amendment?right?to?confrontation,?his?Fourteenth?Amendment?right?to?due?process?of?law,?and?the?separation?of?powers?doctrine?of?article?III?of?the?state?Constitution.?In?addition,?he?asserts?Proposition?115?violates?the?single-subject?and?revision?provisions?(art.?II,???8,?subd.?(d),?&?art.?XVIII)?of?the?California?Constitution. In?Raven?v.?Deukmejian,?supra,?52?Cal.3d?336,?we?rejected?an?identical?single-subject?rule?challenge?to?Proposition?115.?We?also?rejected?a?revision?challenge?to?the?entire?measure,?invalidating?only?a?severable?provision?that?would?have?required?state?courts?to?interpret?certain?enumerated?state?constitutional?rights?consistently?with?the?federal?Constitution.?The?principles?expressed?in?Raven?adequately?dispose?of?petitioner’s?single-subject?rule?and?revision?challenges.?(See?52?Cal.3d?at?pp.?349-350.) [1a]?Before?discussing?the?merits?of?petitioner’s?various?remaining?constitutional?challenges,?we?first?turn?to?his?alternative?argument?to?the?effect?[54?Cal.3d?1072]?that,?as?an?interpretive?matter,?the?hearsay?provisions?of?Proposition?115?did?not?contemplate,?and?do?not?permit,?reliance?on?hearsay?of?the?kind?involved?in?this?case.?Thereafter,?we?address?petitioner’s?constitutional?arguments. Testimony?of?Noninvestigating?Officers?or?”Readers” [2]?As?an?initial?matter,?we?observe?that?”[t]he?fundamental?purpose?of?statutory?construction?is?to?ascertain?the?intent?of?the?lawmakers?so?as?to?effectuate?the?purpose?of?the?law.?[Citations.]?In?order?to?determine?this?intent,?we?begin?by?examining?the?language?of?the?statute.?[Citations.]?But?'[i]t?is?a?settled?principle?of?statutory?interpretation?that?language?of?a?statute?should?not?be?given?a?literal?meaning?if?doing?so?would?result?in?absurd?consequences?which?the?Legislature?did?not?intend.’?[Citations.]?Thus?'[t]he?intent?prevails?over?the?letter,?and?the?letter?will,?if?possible,?be?so?read?as?to?conform?to?the?spirit?of?the?act.’?[Citation.]”?(People?v.?Pieters?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?894,?898-899?[276?Cal.Rptr.?918,?802?P.2d?420].)?Similar?rules?would?govern?interpretation?of?measures?adopted?by?initiative.?(See?Amador?Valley?Joint?Union?High?Sch.?Dist.?v.?State?Bd.?of?Equalization?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?208,?245?[149?Cal.Rptr.?239,?583?P.2d?1281].) [1b]?As?previously?noted,?Proposition?115?added?new?constitutional?and?statutory?language?relating?to?the?use?of?hearsay?evidence?at?preliminary?hearings.?The?constitutional?provision?(art.?I,???30,?subd.?(b))?states?that?”hearsay?evidence”?is?admissible?at?such?hearings,?as?provided?by?law.?An?amendment?to?Penal?Code?section?872,?subdivision?(b),?provides?that?a?probable?cause?finding?may?be?based?on?the?testimony?of?certain?qualified?law?enforcement?officers?relating?the?out-of-court?statements?of?”declarants.” Petitioner’s?primary?argument?is?that,?as?a?matter?of?sound?statutory?interpretation,?Officer?Alexander?should?not?have?been?permitted?to?relate?the?contents?of?Officer?Navin’s?investigative?report?because?Alexander?was?not?involved?in?the?investigation?of?the?case?and?had?no?personal?knowledge?of?the?circumstances?under?which?Navin’s?report?was?prepared.?We?agree.?Properly?construed,?Proposition?115?does?not?authorize?a?finding?of?probable?cause?based?on?the?testimony?of?a?noninvestigating?officer?or?”reader”?merely?reciting?the?police?report?of?an?investigating?officer.?We?believe?the?probable?intent?of?the?framers?of?the?measure?was?to?allow?a?properly?qualified?investigating?officer?to?relate?out-of-court?statements?by?crime?victims?or?witnesses,?including?other?law?enforcement?personnel,?without?requiring?the?victims’?or?witnesses’?presence?in?court.?The?testifying?officer,?however,?must?not?be?a?mere?reader?but?must?have?sufficient?knowledge?of?the?crime?or?the?circumstances?under?which?the?out-of-court?statement?was?[54?Cal.3d?1073]?made?so?as?to?meaningfully?assist?the?magistrate?in?assessing?the?reliability?of?the?statement. New?Penal?Code?section?872,?subdivision?(b),?by?its?terms?refers?to?”testimony?of?a?law?enforcement?officer?relating?the?statements?of?declarants?made?out?of?court?….”?(Italics?added.)?A?”declarant”?is?defined?by?Evidence?Code?section?135?as?”a?person?who?makes?a?statement.”?As?the?Legislative?Analyst?described?it?to?the?voters,?the?intent?underlying?this?provision?was?to?allow?introduction?of?”out-of-court?statements”?at?preliminary?hearings?if?those?statements?are?”introduced?through?the?testimony?of?certain?trained?and?experienced?law?enforcement?officers.”?(Ballot?Pamp.,?Proposed?Stats.?and?Amends.?to?Cal.?Const.?with?arguments?to?voters,?Primary?Elec.?(June?5,?1990)?p.?33.)?As?the?People?observe,?the?section?and?its?use?of?the?term?”declarants”?is?not?limited?to?the?statements?of?civilian?or?citizen?witnesses?but?would?include?the?statements?or?reports?of?any?persons,?including?other?law?enforcement?officers?such?as?Officer?Navin?herein. But?other?provisions?of?the?measure?convince?us?that?the?use?of?mere?”readers”?such?as?Officer?Alexander?was?not?contemplated?by?the?measure.?To?permit?testimony?by?noninvestigating?officers?that?merely?recites?the?contents?of?the?reports?of?the?investigating?officers?would?render?largely?meaningless?or?nugatory?the?new?statutory?provision,?also?added?by?Proposition?115,?that?requires?that?the?testifying?officer?have?at?least?five?years?of?law?enforcement?experience?or?have?completed?a?training?course?covering?the?”investigating?and?reporting”?of?criminal?cases.?(Pen.?Code,???872,?subd.?(b).)?This?provision?undoubtedly?was?intended?to?enhance?the?reliability?of?hearsay?testimony?at?preliminary?hearings.?Yet?such?reliability?is?not?furthered?if?the?only?testimonial?function?of?the?”qualified”?noninvestigating?officer?such?as?Officer?Alexander?is?to?parrot?information?contained?in?a?report?prepared?by?another?officer?who?may?lack?such?extensive?experience?or?training. As?petitioner?observes,?the?experience?and?training?requirements?of?Penal?Code?section?872,?subdivision?(b),?could?be?readily?circumvented?if?prosecutors?were?permitted?routinely?to?designate?the?same?”qualified”?officer?as?a?”reader”?of?the?reports?of?other?officers,?regardless?of?their?own?qualifications,?or?lack?thereof.?The?alternate?requirement?of?training?in?”investigating?and?reporting”?crimes?strongly?supports?petitioner’s?position?that?Proposition?115’s?hearsay?provisions?were?intended?to?foreclose?the?testimony?of?a?noninvestigating?officer?lacking?personal?knowledge?of?either?the?crime?or?the?circumstances?under?which?the?out-of-court?statements?were?made.?(See?generally,?Cowell,?When?Prelims?Turn?Pro?Forma?(Mar.?1991)?11?Cal.?Law.,?at?p.?104.)?[54?Cal.3d?1074] Thus,?in?permitting?only?officers?with?lengthy?experience?or?special?training?to?testify?regarding?out-of-court?statements,?Penal?Code?section?872,?subdivision?(b),?plainly?contemplates?that?the?testifying?officer?will?be?capable?of?using?his?or?her?experience?and?expertise?to?assess?the?circumstances?under?which?the?statement?is?made?and?to?accurately?describe?those?circumstances?to?the?magistrate?so?as?to?increase?the?reliability?of?the?underlying?evidence. Moreover,?to?allow?testimony?by?noninvestigating?officers?or?readers?would?seemingly?sanction?a?form?of?double?or?multiple?hearsay?beyond?the?contemplation?of?the?framers?of,?and?voters?for,?Proposition?115.?(See?Evid.?Code,???1201?[multiple?hearsay?admissible?only?if?each?hearsay?statement?admissible?under?hearsay?rule?exception].)?Although?such?multiple?hearsay?was?not?present?in?this?case,?we?doubt?that?Proposition?115?was?intended?to?sanction?a?procedure?whereby?a?noninvestigating?officer,?lacking?any?personal?knowledge?of?the?matter,?nonetheless?would?be?permitted?to?relate?not?only?what?the?investigating?officer?told?him?or?her,?but?also?what?the?other?witnesses?told?the?investigating?officer.?It?is?noteworthy?that?although?Proposition?115?created?an?exception?to?the?basic?hearsay?rule?contained?in?Evidence?Code?section?1200?(see?new?Pen.?Code,???872,?subd.?(b)),?the?measure?did?not?purport?to?create?a?similar?exception?for?the?multiple?hearsay?rule?of?Evidence?Code?section?1201. In?addition,?an?interpretation?of?Proposition?115?that?would?allow?”reader”?or?multiple?hearsay?testimony?would?raise?constitutional?questions?that?we?can?and?should?avoid?by?limiting?admissible?hearsay?testimony?to?testimony?by?qualified?investigative?officers.?(See,?e.g.,?People?v.?Smith?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?251,?259?[193?Cal.Rptr.?692,?667?P.2d?149]?[construing?Prop.?8,?”The?Victims’?Bill?of?Rights”?initiative?measure,?to?avoid?constitutional?doubts].)?As?discussed?below,?we?believe?that?the?latter,?more?limited,?form?of?hearsay?evidence?satisfies?federal?requirements?of?reliability?(see?Ohio?v.?Roberts?(1980)?448?U.S.?56,?63-65?[65?L.Ed.2d?597,?605-607,?100?S.Ct.?2531]),?and?thus?properly?may?be?admitted?at?preliminary?hearings?despite?the?defendant’s?inability?to?confront?and?cross-examine?the?declarant?witness?or?victim.?But?substantial?additional?objections?to?the?reliability?of?the?evidence?might?arise?if?multiple?hearsay?were?involved,?and?the?defendant?were?also?deprived?of?the?opportunity?to?meaningfully?cross-examine?the?testifying?officer?regarding?the?circumstances?under?which?the?out-of-court?statement?was?made. In?the?present?case,?for?example,?on?cross-examination,?Officer?Alexander?was?unable?to?answer?potentially?significant?questions?regarding?the?methods?and?circumstances?of?Officer?Navin’s?investigation,?including?the?time?the?report?was?written,?the?details?of?the?sobriety?test?given?petitioner,?and?[54?Cal.3d?1075]?petitioner’s?pupil?reaction?and?degree?of?dilation.?Indeed,?Alexander?was?even?uncertain?how?long?Navin?had?been?employed?on?the?force?or?even?whether?Navin?was?a?male?or?female?officer.?Similar?uncertainties?are?inherent?in?any?procedure?in?which?the?testifying?officer?acts?as?no?more?than?a?”reader”?of?another?officer’s?investigative?report. [3]?In?her?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion,?Justice?Kennard?suggests?that?the?term?”declarant”?in?section?872,?subdivision?(b)?should?be?interpreted?to?refer?only?to?”citizen”?declarants?and?not?to?police?officer?declarants.?The?statutory?language?contains?no?such?limitation,?however,?and?one?of?the?principal?purposes?of?Proposition?115-to?increase?the?efficient?administration?of?the?criminal?justice?system,?and,?in?particular,?to?streamline?the?preliminary?hearing?procedure?(see,?e.g.,?Prop.?115,????1,?subd.?(c),?16,?17,?18,?Primary?Elec.?(June?5,?1990)?[Deering’s?Ann.?Cal.?Const.?(1991?pocket?supp.)?note?foll.?art.?I,???14.1,?pp.?44-45;?Pen.?Code,????866,?871.6,?872])-strongly?supports?an?interpretation?of?the?provision?in?accordance?with?its?”plain?meaning,”?permitting?a?qualified?officer?to?testify?to?out-of-court?statements?by?fellow?officers?and?thereby?eliminating?the?need?for?the?separate?appearance?and?testimony?of?a?substantial?number?of?police?officers?at?preliminary?hearings.?Although?the?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?suggests?that?its?proposed?interpretation?has?the?advantage?of?establishing?a?”bright?line”?test?that?the?court’s?opinion?lacks,?in?reality?the?suggested?interpretation?would?simply?narrow?the?class?of?persons?whose?out-of-court?statements?could?be?introduced,?but?would?still?require?a?further?standard?for?determining?the?required?relationship?between?the?testifying?officer?and?the?out-of-court?statement. [1c]?Thus,?we?conclude?that?the?magistrate?erred?in?allowing?Officer?Alexander?to?read?or?relate?portions?of?Officer?Navin’s?report,?and?that?such?error?requires?dismissal?of?the?information.?It?appears,?however,?that?the?People?will?be?entitled?to?refile?the?information?(see?Pen.?Code,???1387),?and?a?new?preliminary?hearing?may?be?held.?Accordingly,?for?purposes?of?guiding?the?lower?courts?during?any?such?further?proceedings,?we?will?consider?petitioner’s?alternative?contentions. Constitutional?Right?to?Confrontation In?the?foregoing?discussion,?we?construe?Proposition?115?to?allow?an?investigating?officer?to?relate?at?the?preliminary?hearing?any?relevant?statements?of?victims?or?witnesses,?if?the?testifying?officer?has?sufficient?knowledge?of?the?crime?or?the?circumstances?under?which?the?out-of-court?statement?was?made?so?as?to?meaningfully?assist?the?magistrate?in?assessing?the?reliability?of?the?statement.?The?new?measure?would?permit?the?magistrate?to?base?a?finding?of?probable?cause?entirely?on?that?testimony.?(Pen.?Code,?[54?Cal.3d?1076]???872,?subd.?(b).)?Petitioner?asserts?that?such?a?procedure?would?violate?his?state?and?federal?constitutional?rights?to?confront?his?accusers.?We?disagree. State?Confrontation?Clause Section?15?of?article?I?of?the?state?Constitution?guarantees?to?the?defendant?in?a?criminal?case?various?procedural?rights,?including?the?right?”to?be?confronted?with?the?witnesses?against?the?defendant.”?We?relied?on?that?provision?in?Mills?v.?Superior?Court?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?951,?956-960?[232?Cal.Rptr.?141,?728?P.2d?211],?to?invalidate?a?former?version?of?Penal?Code?section?872?that?deprived?defendants?of?certain?confrontation?and?cross-examination?rights?at?preliminary?hearings. Under?the?former?statute?at?issue?in?Mills?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?a?finding?of?probable?cause?could?be?based?on?the?hearsay?statements?of?a?witness?who?was?neither?an?eyewitness?nor?a?victim,?but?only?if?the?defendant?failed?to?make?reasonable?efforts?to?secure?the?presence?of?the?witness?at?the?preliminary?hearing.?We?grounded?our?decision?invalidating?the?statute?on?prior?California?cases?acknowledging?the?”critical?importance”?of?the?preliminary?hearing?as?a?mechanism?to?weed?out?groundless?claims.?As?we?stated,?”Only?by?preserving?the?adversarial?character?of?the?preliminary?hearing?can?we?enable?the?magistrate?responsibly?to?’weigh?the?evidence,?resolve?conflicts?and?give?or?withhold?credence?to?particular?witnesses.’?[Citations.]”?(42?Cal.3d?at?p.?957.)?We?concluded?that?the?challenged?statute,?by?requiring?a?defendant?to?expend?”reasonable?efforts”?to?secure?a?witness’s?presence?at?the?hearing,?”unduly?strains?defendant’s?rights?under?article?I,?section?15,?of?the?California?Constitution.”?(Id.?at?p.?958.) […]
