Case Title: P. v. Herrera

Citation: 49 Cal. 4th 613

Docket Number: S171895

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
Filed 7/1/10 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S171895 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 4/3 G039028 
HONORIO MORENO HERRERA, 
) 
 
) 
Orange County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. 05CF3817 
 
____________________________________) 
 
Defendant Honorio Moreno Herrera was a member of the criminal street 
gang known as ―Krazy Proud Criminals‖ or ―KPC.‖  In June 2005, he and two 
fellow KPC members drove into the territory of a rival gang called ―Logan,‖ and 
shot and killed Erick Peralta.  In June 2006, Jose Portillo testified at a preliminary 
hearing that defendant confessed to the shooting.  Defendant was then charged by 
information with one count of first degree murder, with a criminal street gang 
special circumstance and two gang-related enhancements.  He was also charged 
with one count of street terrorism. 
By the time defendant‘s case was ready for trial in May 2007, Portillo could 
not be found.  The prosecution filed a pretrial motion to admit Portillo‘s 
preliminary hearing testimony, contending he was unavailable as a witness.  After 
hearing evidence that Portillo had been deported to El Salvador in September 
2006, and that El Salvador and the United States had no treaty providing for his 
extradition to this country to testify as a witness, the trial court ruled Portillo 
2 
unavailable and allowed his testimony to be read to the jury.  The Court of Appeal 
reversed, concluding the prosecution had failed to establish Portillo‘s 
unavailability as required by the confrontation clauses of the federal and state 
Constitutions and the Evidence Code.  (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., 
art. 1, § 15; Evid. Code, §§ 1290, 1291, 240, subd. (a)(4), (5).) 
Consistent with decisions of the United States Supreme Court and our state 
courts, we hold that the prosecution‘s showing of Portillo‘s unavailability, which 
was based on undisputed testimony, satisfied constitutional and state law 
requirements.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and 
remand the matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with our 
opinion. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
About 10:30 p.m. on June 19, 2005, Erick Peralta and his cousin Efren 
Enriquez were walking on Spurgeon Street in Santa Ana toward a convenience 
store.  According to Enriquez, a blue four-door car with three people passed them 
and stopped.  A man exited the car and asked where they were from.  Enriquez put 
his hand up and said, ―What‘s up?‖ as he and Peralta kept walking.  A second man 
with a gun got out of the car and fired at them once.  Peralta was shot in the head 
and killed.  The two men got back in the car, someone yelled out ―KPC,‖ and the 
car drove off. 
Santa Ana Police Detective Richard Ashby interviewed Enriquez shortly 
after the shooting.  Enriquez was shown photographs of active KPC gang 
members, but he did not identify anyone as the suspects. 
Three months later, on September 17, 2005, Jose Portillo, a former KPC 
member, was driving a car with defendant as one of the passengers.  Portillo sped 
away when he saw the police.  The police gave chase, and Portillo was arrested for 
felony evading.  Defendant was arrested for attempting to flee from Portillo‘s car. 
3 
On September 19, 2005, Portillo told Detective Ashby that defendant had 
bragged to him about shooting a person who identified himself as a Logan gang 
member.  Defendant had said two people, a guy from ―Clown Town‖ and another 
―youngster‖ he did not identify, were with him at the time of the shooting.  Portillo 
also described the car used in the shooting as a dark-purple Chevy Beretta.  
Portillo had previously seen defendant driving this car and had seen him with Luis 
Estudillo and Paul Del La Cruz, additional suspects in the case. 
On or about November 19, 2005, defendant had a two-hour interview with 
Detective Ashby after waiving his right to an attorney and right to remain silent.  
Defendant initially denied knowledge of the shooting, but then admitted 
witnessing it.  He named ―Striker,‖ an Anaheim ―Clown Town‖ gang member, as 
the driver involved in the crime, but refused to name the shooter. 
Several months later, on June 19, 2006, Portillo testified at defendant‘s 
preliminary hearing.  According to Portillo, defendant told Portillo in June of 2005 
that defendant was the shooter who killed Peralta.  Defendant was bound over for 
trial and charged by information with one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 
§ 187, subd. (a)), with a criminal street gang special circumstance (id., 
subd. (a)(22)), a gang-benefit enhancement (id., § 186.22, subd. (b)), and an 
enhancement for gang-member vicarious discharge of a firearm causing death (id., 
§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)).  Defendant was also charged with one count of 
street terrorism.  (id., § 186.22, subd. (a).) 
Trial was scheduled for March 7, 2007, but it was continued two months to 
May 21 because neither side was ready for trial.  On and after May 21, 2007, the 
trial was trailed three times to May 30. 
On May 30, 2007, the prosecution filed a motion to admit Portillo‘s 
preliminary hearing testimony.  Claiming that Portillo was unavailable to testify at 
trial, the prosecution requested a hearing on the issue of due diligence.  According 
4 
to the motion, Portillo had been in custody on an unrelated matter at the time of 
defendant‘s June 19, 2006, preliminary hearing, and he agreed to provide truthful 
testimony in exchange for a more lenient sentence.  After testifying at the 
preliminary hearing, Portillo entered a plea in the unrelated matter and was 
sentenced.  Records maintained by the United States Department of Homeland 
Security indicated that Portillo was later flown to El Salvador, his country of 
origin, and released. 
That same day, May 30, 2007, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on 
the prosecution‘s motion.  Investigator Ed Wood of the Orange County District 
Attorney‘s Office testified regarding his efforts to secure Portillo‘s presence for 
trial and his communications with the Department of Homeland Security 
concerning Portillo‘s whereabouts.  Wood said he began looking for Portillo the 
Friday before, on May 25.  He started by running Portillo‘s name through the law 
enforcement database and discovered two outstanding ―no bail‖ warrants for his 
arrest.1  Wood then contacted Detective Ashby and asked him to make out ―a 
BOLO or a wanted flyer‖ for Portillo.  The wanted flyer, which was disseminated 
at least regionally to all law enforcement, resulted in no helpful information.  That 
afternoon (May 25), Wood went to Portillo‘s last known residence at an apartment 
unit in Santa Ana.  A woman lived in the unit with her father and daughter, but she 
did not recognize Portillo when shown his photograph. 
                                              
1  
The prosecutor informed the court that he personally spoke with the Orange 
County Probation Department and ascertained that one arrest warrant had been 
issued in April 2007 for Portillo‘s failure to report to probation after his release 
from custody in June 2006.  The record is unclear as to the source and date of the 
other warrant. 
5 
Wood also obtained a ―Local Arrest Record‖ printout listing two telephone 
numbers for Portillo‘s family members or friends, but he ascertained those 
numbers had been disconnected or changed.  Wood additionally asked Detective 
Ashby to try contacting Portillo‘s friends and family, in case Ashby had 
information in the database that was not accessible to Wood. 
Around 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. that same Friday, Wood contacted special agent 
Mark Johnston of the United States Department of Homeland Security.  When 
asked if Portillo had been deported, Johnston checked and confirmed he had been 
deported to El Salvador, his country of origin.  The deportation had occurred more 
than eight months earlier, on September 11, 2006.  Wood determined that Portillo 
was released from custody from the Orange County jail on June 24, 2006, and 
assumed that he ―went into‖ custody of federal immigration authorities around that 
time. 
At 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2007, Wood spoke with Art Zorilla, an 
investigator in the foreign prosecution unit of the Orange County District 
Attorney‘s Office.  At Wood‘s request, Zorilla contacted INTERPOL, the agency 
in El Salvador that would search a database for Portillo and send officers out.  As 
of 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, Wood had heard nothing from El Salvador 
about Portillo.  Zorilla, however, informed Wood that even if Portillo could be 
located in El Salvador, that country had no treaty with the United States and would 
not extradite him.2 
                                              
2  
Strictly speaking, the United States and El Salvador did have an extradition 
treaty.  (Treaty Between the United States and El Salvador for the Mutual 
Extradition of Fugitives from Justice, Apr. 18, 1911, 37 Stat. 1516, T.S. No. 560.)  
That treaty, however, would not have permitted Portillo‘s extradition or return to 
the United States to testify as a witness at defendant‘s trial. 
6 
After Wood concluded his testimony, the prosecution reminded the court 
that Portillo ―entered into an agreement‖ before testifying at the preliminary 
hearing.  The prosecution offered to stipulate that agreement into evidence, as well 
as any moral turpitude prior conviction that would have been available to the 
defense for impeachment purposes had Portillo been present to testify.  Finding 
the prosecution acted with ―due diligence‖ in attempting to secure Portillo‘s 
presence, the trial court permitted the use of his preliminary hearing testimony at 
trial. 
A jury convicted defendant of the charged crimes and found true the 
alleged enhancements and the gang special circumstance allegation.  He was 
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. 
A divided Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, concluding that 
admission of Portillo‘s preliminary hearing testimony at trial was reversible error. 
DISCUSSION 
The central issue is whether admission of Portillo‘s preliminary hearing 
testimony was erroneous or in violation of defendant‘s constitutional right of 
confrontation. 
A criminal defendant has the right, guaranteed by the confrontation clauses 
of both the federal and state Constitutions, to confront the prosecution‘s witnesses.  
(U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. 1, § 15.)  The right of confrontation 
―seeks ‗to ensure that the defendant is able to conduct a ―personal examination and 
cross-examination of the witness, in which [the defendant] has an opportunity, not 
only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of 
compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at 
him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives 
his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.‖ ‘  (People v. Louis (1986) 42 Cal.3d 
969, 982, quoting Mattox v. United States (1895) 156 U.S. 237, 242-243.)  To 
7 
deny or significantly diminish this right deprives a defendant of the essential 
means of testing the credibility of the prosecution‘s witnesses, thus calling ‗into 
question the ultimate ― ‗integrity of the fact-finding process.‘ ‖ ‘  (Chambers v. 
Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284, 295.)‖  (People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 
896-897 (Cromer).) 
Although important, the constitutional right of confrontation is not 
absolute.  (Chambers v. Mississippi, supra, 410 U.S. at p. 295; Cromer, supra, 
24 Cal.4th at p. 897.)  ―Traditionally, there has been ‗an exception to the 
confrontation requirement where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony 
at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant [and] which was 
subject to cross-examination . . . .‘  (Barber v. Page [(1968) 390 U.S. 719,] 722.)‖  
(Cromer, supra, at p. 897.)  Pursuant to this exception, the preliminary hearing 
testimony of an unavailable witness may be admitted at trial without violating a 
defendant‘s confrontation right.  (People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 303.) 
This traditional exception is codified in the California Evidence Code.3  
(People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 67.)  Section 1291, subdivision (a)(2), 
provides that ―former testimony,‖ such as preliminary hearing testimony,4 is not 
made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if ―the declarant is unavailable as a 
witness,‖ and ―[t]he party against whom the former testimony is offered was a 
party to the action or proceeding in which the testimony was given and had the 
right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an interest and motive 
similar to that which he has at the hearing.‖  Thus, when the requirements of 
                                              
3  
All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise indicated. 
4  
For purposes of the Evidence Code, former testimony includes ―testimony 
given under oath‖ in ―a former hearing or trial of the same action.‖  (§ 1290, subd. 
(a).) 
8 
section 1291 are met, the admission of former testimony in evidence does not 
violate a defendant‘s constitutional right of confrontation.  (People v. Friend, at 
p. 67.) 
There is no dispute that defendant was a party to the action in which 
Portillo‘s former testimony was given, and that he actually exercised his right to 
cross-examine Portillo with the requisite interest and motive.  The question is 
whether Portillo was unavailable as a witness. 
A witness who is absent from a trial is not ―unavailable‖ in the 
constitutional sense unless the prosecution has made a ―good faith effort‖ to obtain 
the witness‘s presence at the trial.  (Barber v. Page (1968) 390 U.S. 719, 724-725 
(Barber).)  The United States Supreme Court has described the good-faith 
requirement this way:  ―The law does not require the doing of a futile act.  Thus, if 
no possibility of procuring the witness exists (as, for example, the witness‘ 
intervening death), ‗good faith‘ demands nothing of the prosecution.  But if there 
is a possibility, albeit remote, that affirmative measures might produce the 
declarant, the obligation of good faith may demand their effectuation.  ‗The 
lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness . . . is a question of 
reasonableness.  [Citation.]  The ultimate question is whether the witness is 
unavailable despite good-faith efforts undertaken prior to trial to locate and 
present that witness.‖  (Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 74, disapproved on 
another point in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 60-68.) 
Our Evidence Code features a similar requirement for establishing a 
witness‘s unavailability.  Under section 240, subdivision (a)(5) (section 240(a)(5)), 
a witness is unavailable when he or she is ―[a]bsent from the hearing and the 
proponent of his or her statement has exercised reasonable diligence but has been 
unable to procure his or her attendance by the court‘s process.‖  (Italics added.)  
The term ―[r]easonable diligence, often called ‗due diligence‘ in case law, 
9 
‗ ―connotes persevering application, untiring efforts in good earnest, efforts of a 
substantial character.‖ ‘ ‖  (People v. Cogswell (2010) 48 Cal.4th 467, 477.)  
Considerations relevant to the due diligence inquiry ―include the timeliness of the 
search, the importance of the proffered testimony, and whether leads of the 
witness‘s possible location were competently explored.‖  (People v. Wilson (2005) 
36 Cal.4th 309, 341 [relying on Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 904].)  In this 
regard, ―California law and federal constitutional requirements are the same.‖  
(People v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 291-292.) 
Before analyzing the good faith and due diligence requirements in depth, 
we briefly address section 240, subdivision (a)(4) (section 240(a)(4)), which 
provides that a witness is unavailable when he or she is ―[a]bsent from the hearing 
and the court is unable to compel his or her attendance by its process.‖  In contrast 
to section 240(a)(5), section 240(a)(4) makes no mention of a ―reasonable 
diligence‖ requirement, thus indicating the Legislature‘s intent to dispense with 
such a showing in those cases where the court has no power to compel the 
witness‘s attendance.  Although the Attorney General contends on appeal that the 
terms of section 240(a)(4) have been satisfied, neither the prosecution nor the trial 
court purported to predicate Portillo‘s unavailability on that provision.  Even 
assuming, however, that Portillo was unavailable under section 240(a)(4), 
unavailability in the constitutional sense nonetheless requires a determination that 
the prosecution satisfied its obligation of good faith in attempting to obtain 
Portillo‘s presence.  With this in mind, we shall assess the reasonableness of the 
prosecution‘s actions. 
As indicated, to establish unavailability, the prosecution must show that its 
efforts to locate and produce a witness for trial were reasonable under the 
circumstances presented.  (Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 74; People v. 
Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 609 (Smith).)  We review the trial court‘s resolution 
10 
of disputed factual issues under the deferential substantial evidence standard 
(Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 902), and independently review whether the facts 
demonstrate prosecutorial good faith and due diligence (id. at pp. 902-903). 
In this case, we must consider what prosecutorial efforts will sustain a 
finding of unavailability when the absent witness was not in this jurisdiction but in 
another country.  We start by consulting two decisions of the United States 
Supreme Court:  Barber, supra, 390 U.S. 719, and Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 
U.S. 204 (Mancusi). 
In Barber, supra, 390 U.S. 719, the issue was whether the petitioner was 
deprived of his constitutional right of confrontation at his trial in Oklahoma for 
armed robbery, in which the principal evidence against him consisted of the 
preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who at the time of trial was serving a 
federal prison term in Texas.  (Id. at p. 720.) 
Barber began by noting the state had made ―absolutely no effort to obtain 
the presence of [the witness] at trial other than to ascertain that he was in a federal 
prison outside Oklahoma.‖  (Barber, supra, 390 U.S. at p. 723.)  Although 
acknowledging that, at one time, a showing of mere absence from the jurisdiction 
might have sufficed to demonstrate unavailability, Barber observed that times had 
changed.  By 1968, the ―increased cooperation between the States themselves and 
between the States and the Federal Government‖ in making witnesses available for 
trial had changed the confrontation clause analysis.  (Ibid.)  As relevant there, a 
federal statute empowered federal courts to issue appropriate writs at the request 
of state prosecutorial authorities, and federal prison policy also supported state 
writ procedures.  (Id. at p. 724; see also id. at pp. 723-724, fn. 4 [describing 
procedures by which a state could secure the attendance of nonincarcerated and 
state-incarcerated witnesses located in a sister state].) 
11 
In light of such developments, Barber held the prosecution failed to 
establish the incarcerated witness‘s unavailability because it had made absolutely 
no effort to obtain his attendance by the cooperation of the federal authorities or a 
federal court.  (Barber, supra, 390 U.S. at p. 725.)  As Barber explained, ―So far 
as this record reveals, the sole reason why [the witness] was not present to testify 
in person was because the State did not attempt to seek his presence.  The right of 
confrontation may not be dispensed with so lightly.‖  (Ibid., italics added.) 
Mancusi, supra, 408 U.S. 204, decided four years later, discussed and 
distinguished Barber, supra, 390 U.S. 719, in the context of a nonincarcerated 
witness residing outside the United States.  In Mancusi, the petitioner challenged 
the use of a prior Tennessee murder conviction for sentencing purposes in a New 
York criminal proceeding, on the ground the Tennessee conviction was obtained 
in violation of his right of confrontation.  (Mancusi, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 205.)  At 
the petitioner‘s first Tennessee trial, the slain victim‘s husband, Alex Holm, 
testified for the prosecution, resulting in a murder conviction.  That conviction was 
reversed, and the petitioner was retried.  At the retrial, the prosecution sought to 
have Holm declared unavailable, based on the testimony of Holm‘s son that Holm, 
who was a naturalized American citizen, had left the United States and become a 
permanent resident of his native Sweden.  The trial court permitted Holm‘s 
testimony from the first trial to be read to the jury, and the petitioner was again 
convicted of murder.  (Id. at pp. 207-209.) 
Mancusi concluded the use of the second Tennessee conviction did not 
violate the petitioner‘s right of confrontation.  Mancusi observed that in Barber, 
the uniform act to secure the attendance of witnesses from without a state, the 
availability of appropriate federal writs, and the policy of federal prisons to honor 
writs issued out of state courts, all supported Barber‘s conclusion that ―the State 
had not met its obligations to make a good-faith effort to obtain the presence of the 
12 
witness merely by showing that [the witness] was beyond the boundaries of the 
prosecuting State.‖  (Mancusi, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 212.)  In Mancusi, however, 
the witness was not simply absent from Tennessee but was a permanent resident of 
another country.  (Id. at p. 211.)  Mancusi found that distinction significant, 
emphasizing:  ―There have been . . . no corresponding developments in the area of 
obtaining witnesses between this country and foreign nations.‖  (Id. at p. 212.)  On 
this point, Mancusi noted that neither the existing case law nor the statutory 
language of the then effective version of 28 United States Code section 1783(a) 
would have permitted a federal court to subpoena a United States citizen residing 
in a foreign country for testimony in a state felony trial.   (Mancusi, supra, 408 
U.S. at pp. 211-212.)5 
Under those circumstances, ―good faith‖ did not require additional efforts 
by the prosecution.  As far as the high court was concerned, ―[u]pon discovering 
that Holm resided in a foreign nation, the State of Tennessee, so far as this record 
shows, was powerless to compel his attendance at the second trial, either through 
its own process or through established procedures depending on the voluntary 
assistance of another government.‖  (Mancusi, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 212.)  
Accordingly, Mancusi concluded the state trial court‘s determination as to Holm‘s 
unavailability should stand.  (Mancusi, supra, 408 U.S. at pp. 212-213.) 
Subsequent to Mancusi, the Supreme Court stated in Ohio v. Roberts, 
supra, 448 U.S. 56, that ―if there is a possibility, albeit remote, that affirmative 
measures might produce the declarant, the obligation of good faith may demand 
their effectuation.‖  (Id. at p. 74.)  This statement did not alter or detract from 
                                              
5  
Mancusi declined to consider a 1964 amendment to 28 United States Code 
section 1783 because it was not available to the Tennessee authorities at the time 
of the petitioner‘s retrial.  (Mancusi, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 212, fn. 2.) 
13 
Mancusi‘s analysis that when the prosecution discovers the desired witness resides 
in a foreign nation, and the state is powerless to obtain the witness‘s attendance, 
either through its own process or through established procedures, the prosecution 
need do no more to establish the witness‘s unavailability.  Indeed, the Supreme 
Court cited Mancusi as providing ―significant support for a conclusion of good-
faith effort‖ in Ohio v. Roberts.  (Id. at p. 76.) 
California decisions are in accord.  In People v. Ware (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 
822, a sexual assault victim testified at the defendant‘s preliminary hearing, and 
then returned home to Spain.  (Id. at p. 827.)  Despite having the victim‘s address 
and telephone number in Spain, the prosecution made no attempt to obtain her 
presence at trial.  (Id. at p. 829.)  Nonetheless, Ware upheld the admissibility of 
the victim‘s videotaped preliminary hearing testimony.  (Id. at pp. 837-838.)  
While acknowledging that mere absence from the jurisdiction was no longer 
sufficient to dispense with the right of confrontation (id. at p. 831), Ware found its 
facts comparable to those in Mancusi, in that no alternative means were available 
at that time to secure the victim‘s attendance at trial (Ware, at p. 837). 
People v. St. Germain (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 507 (St. Germain) provides 
an example where unavailability was demonstrated with regard to one witness 
residing in another country at the time of trial, but not as to another witness 
residing in the same foreign country.  St. Germain determined that a witness 
named Kowsoleea was properly declared unavailable, where it was shown he was 
a citizen and resident of the Netherlands at the time of trial, because no court 
process could compel the attendance of a foreign national and no treaty provision 
or compact with the Netherlands existed.  (Id. at pp. 517-518.)  Notably, St. 
Germain came to the opposite conclusion for the other witness, named Smith.  
Although Smith lived in the Netherlands with Kowsoleea at the time of trial, she 
had a ―green card,‖ which meant she was a permanent resident of the United 
14 
States.  (Id. at p. 516.)  Given Smith‘s permanent resident status, the prosecution 
―had available the remedy of a subpoena to be issued by the federal courts 
requiring the appearance as a witness before a ‗body designated by it‘ — here the 
superior court jury — ‗of a national or resident of the United States who is in a 
foreign county. . . .‘ ‖  (Id. at p. 517, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1783.)6  Because the 
prosecution made no attempt to secure Smith‘s presence through this federal 
procedure, St. Germain concluded she was not unavailable and found her former 
testimony inadmissible.  (St. Germain, at p. 517.) 
People v. Sandoval (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1425 (Sandoval) represents a 
more recent application of the Barber/Mancusi analysis.  There, the absent witness 
was deported to his native Mexico after testifying at the defendant‘s preliminary 
hearing.  (Id. at p. 1432.)  The prosecution kept in contact with the witness, and 
ascertained his willingness to return for the trial if given money to make the trip to 
California, including $100 to pay for obtaining a passport and visa for legal entry 
into the United States.  (Ibid.)  Ultimately, the prosecution decided not to provide 
financial assistance to the witness, and did nothing more to secure his attendance 
at the trial.  (Ibid.) 
Although acknowledging that the trial court had no power to compel the 
witness‘s appearance at trial (Sandoval, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1434), 
Sandoval found it highly significant that the United States and Mexico had a 
treaty, which became effective in 1991, providing for cooperation in the 
prosecution of crimes and mutual assistance in obtaining witness testimony.  
                                              
6  
The version of 28 United States Code section 1783 that applied in St. 
Germain differed substantially from the version existing at the time of the relevant 
events in Mancusi.  (Compare St. Germain, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at p. 517, fn. 6, 
with Mancusi, supra, 408 U.S. at pp. 211-212.) 
15 
(Sandoval, at pp. 1439-1440.)  Specifically, the treaty outlined several cooperative 
methods by which a Mexican resident‘s testimony could be obtained, either in 
California or in Mexico.  (Id. at p. 1439.)7  This development sufficiently 
distinguished the situation in Sandoval from that which existed in 1972 when 
Mancusi observed that the United States had not yet made agreements with foreign 
countries similar to the interstate agreements found in Barber.  (Sandoval, supra, 
87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1440.)  Because the treaty with Mexico represented such an 
agreement, the prosecution‘s failure to pursue any of the cooperative methods 
outlined in the treaty was fatal to its showing of good faith:  ―Consideration of the 
options available to the prosecution and the extent to which the prosecution 
attempted to use these alternatives to obtain [the witness‘s] presence establishes 
that the prosecution did not make a reasonable, good-faith effort.‖  (Id. at p. 1444.)  
Accordingly, Sandoval concluded the absent witness residing in Mexico was not 
unavailable in the constitutional sense.8 
                                              
7  
Sandoval described the treaty as follows.  ―Article 7 allows a prosecutor in 
the United States to request that a witness in Mexico be compelled by Mexican 
authorities to appear and testify, but only in Mexico.  Article 8 provides for the 
transportation to the United States of a person in custody in Mexico to testify if the 
person consents and Mexico has no reasonable basis to deny the request.  And 
article 9 allows the prosecution to request the assistance of Mexican authorities to 
invite a person in Mexico to come to California and testify and to inform the 
person concerning the extent to which expenses will be paid.‖  (Sandoval, supra, 
87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439, fns. omitted.) 
8  
We note Sandoval suggested that good faith also required the prosecution 
to go beyond the treaty in trying to secure the absent witness‘s presence.  That part 
of its discussion, however, was based on additional facts not presented here, i.e., 
there, the deported witness had previously disclosed at the preliminary hearing that 
he was in the country illegally (Sandoval, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 1429), and 
the prosecution actually located him in Mexico and received assurance he would 
cooperate if provided the necessary funds (id. at pp. 1441-1442).  Sandoval 
observed that, in the face of such circumstances, ―[t]he prosecution could have 
 
(footnote continued on next page) 
16 
Finally, Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th 581, involved a situation where a Japanese 
foreign exchange student named Fukumoto testified at the defendant‘s preliminary 
hearing, and then returned to Japan, where the prosecution contended he resided at 
the time of trial.  (Id. at p. 608.)  The defendant did not dispute that Fukumoto 
would have been unavailable if he were actually in Japan, but he challenged the 
prosecution‘s use of hearsay to establish that fact.  (Id. at p. 609.)  The trial court 
concluded Fukumoto was unavailable because he was a Japanese resident and 
therefore not subject to the court‘s process, but it made no specific finding that the 
prosecution had exercised due diligence to try to procure Fukumoto‘s attendance.  
(Id. at p. 610.) 
Applying the independent review standard to the undisputed facts, Smith 
found the prosecution satisfied its burden of showing due diligence upon obtaining 
―three important pieces of information:  (1) Fukumoto testified at the preliminary 
hearing that he was a Japanese national and intended to leave the country several 
months before the trial occurred, (2) Fukumoto‘s host parent told the district 
attorney that Fukumoto had left the country, and (3) the district attorney‘s 
investigator had called the telephone number in Japan that the records showed was 
Fukumoto‘s number and heard a voice at the other end say he was Fukumoto.  
                                                                                                                                                              
 
(footnote continued from previous page) 
 
assisted [the witness] without reference or resort to the Treaty.‖  (Id. at p. 1442.)  
Here, the prosecution was unable to establish contact with the absent witness.  We 
therefore need not and do not decide what additional efforts, if any, might be 
constitutionally required to establish good faith in the event contact with an absent 
witness is made.  (See Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 611, fn. 6 [declining to reach 
issue whether ―prosecution was required to do more to procure [a witness‘s] 
attendance, such as request that he come voluntarily to testify‖]; cf. People v. 
Martinez (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 314; People v. Denson (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 
788.) 
17 
This information may have been legally incompetent, due to the hearsay rule, to 
show that Fukumoto was actually in Japan.  But it sufficed to show that the 
prosecution made reasonable efforts to locate him and that further efforts to 
procure his attendance would be futile.‖  (Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 610-
611.)9 
The foregoing authorities make clear that, when a criminal trial is at issue, 
unavailability in the constitutional sense does not invariably turn on the inability 
of the state court to compel the out-of-state witness‘s attendance through its own 
process, but also takes into consideration the existence of agreements or 
established procedures for securing a witness‘s presence that depend on the 
voluntary assistance of another government.  (Mancusi, supra, 408 U.S. at 
pp. 211-213.)  Where such options exist, the extent to which the prosecution had 
the opportunity to utilize them and endeavored to do so is relevant in determining 
whether the obligations to act in good faith and with due diligence have been 
met.10  (Barber, supra, 390 U.S. at pp. 723-725; Sandoval, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 
at p. 1444; St. Germain, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at p. 517.) 
Mindful of the foregoing authorities, we now consider whether the 
admission of Portillo‘s preliminary hearing testimony at trial was erroneous or 
                                              
9  
In Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th 581, there was no indication of an applicable 
treaty or agreement between Japan and the United States. 
 
10  
Relying on concessions made by the defendant, one California decision 
stated bluntly that no showing of due diligence is required if the witness is a 
foreign citizen outside of the United States at the time of trial.  (People v. Denson, 
supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at pp. 791, 793.)  Unavailability in the constitutional sense, 
however, requires a showing that the prosecution acted in good faith, and the 
lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness in a given set of 
circumstances is a question of reasonableness. 
18 
violated defendant‘s constitutional right of confrontation.  In assessing whether or 
not Portillo was properly found unavailable, we review the trial court‘s factual 
findings under the substantial evidence standard and independently review 
whether the facts demonstrate prosecutorial good faith and due diligence.  
(Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 902-903.) 
Here, the evidence concerning Portillo‘s unavailability as a witness was as 
follows.  District Attorney Investigator Ed Wood took the stand on Wednesday, 
May 30, 2007, and testified that on May 25, the Friday before, he learned from 
special agent Mark Johnston of the United States Department of Homeland 
Security that Portillo had been deported to his native El Salvador in September 
2006.  On Tuesday, May 29, at 8:30 a.m., Wood requested that the foreign 
prosecution investigator at his office, Art Zorilla, contact law enforcement 
authorities in El Salvador in an attempt to locate Portillo in that country.  Zorilla 
did so, but Portillo was not found.  Zorilla informed Wood that, even if Portillo 
could be located in El Salvador, there was no treaty between the two countries 
providing for Portillo‘s extradition or return to the United States.  (See ante, fn. 2.)  
Wood had made additional efforts to locate Portillo at the residence and in the 
region where he last lived in California and to track down any information 
available in the law enforcement database.  Wood discovered there were warrants 
out for Portillo‘s arrest, but ascertained no information indicating that Portillo had 
returned to California.  Unlike the situation in Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th 581, 
defendant made no hearsay objection to any of Wood‘s testimony. 
After hearing this testimony, the trial court determined that Portillo 
―certainly was deported.‖  The court further stated that ―it would be speculative to 
come up with further efforts that could be fruitful in obtaining his presence, 
especially given the testimony we heard with regard to the relationship between El 
Salvador and this country with regard to extradition.‖  Concluding the prosecution 
19 
had acted with due diligence, the trial court ruled Portillo‘s preliminary hearing 
testimony admissible. 
Reviewing the record, we observe that Wood‘s testimony amply supported 
the trial court‘s finding that Portillo had been deported to his native El Salvador in 
September 2006, about three months after the preliminary hearing and more than 
eight months before defendant‘s trial.  Wood‘s testimony also provided substantial 
support for the court‘s determination that Portillo was not in California at the time 
of trial, but was in El Salvador and therefore beyond the court‘s own process.11  
There was no dispute that attempts to locate Portillo in El Salvador proved 
unsuccessful.  Likewise, there was no dispute that even if Portillo could be found 
there, the United States and El Salvador had no agreement or treaty providing for 
an alternative means to compel or facilitate his attendance at defendant‘s trial.  We 
therefore conclude, consistent with the United States Supreme Court and 
California decisions discussed above, that the prosecution fulfilled its obligation of 
good faith and due diligence under the circumstances, that Portillo was unavailable 
as a witness, and that therefore admission of his preliminary hearing testimony at 
trial was proper. 
In finding to the contrary, the Court of Appeal emphasized that the 
prosecution made no effort to locate Portillo until the last business day before 
defendant‘s trial was scheduled to start, thus leaving insufficient time for an 
adequate investigation of his whereabouts.12  The court attributed no significance 
                                              
11  
Defendant complains no effort was made to contact the consulate or 
embassy of El Salvador to confirm Portillo‘s presence and/or residence in that 
country.  As indicated, defendant made no objection whatsoever to Wood‘s 
testimony at the hearing. 
12  
Wood testified he started his search for Portillo on May 25, 2007, the 
Friday (before a three-day weekend) when both parties announced they were ready 
 
(footnote continued on next page) 
20 
to Portillo‘s deportation or to the absence of any applicable treaty or agreement 
between El Salvador and the United States, instead reasoning:  ―Portillo was 
deported to El Salvador in September 2006, presumably a not unexpected event.  
But even if he had not been deported, what was the likelihood he would still live 
in the same Civic Center Drive apartment he occupied a year earlier?  What was 
the probability that the flyer disseminated one business day before the trial was 
scheduled to start would have resulted in Portillo‘s arrest in time for him to testify 
at the trial?  It took Wood less than a day to learn that Portillo had been deported.  
Had this been discovered a few weeks before the trial, efforts could have been 
made to obtain his return to this country and, if such efforts proved unsuccessful, 
the diligence requirement might have been satisfied.  Furthermore, it is not 
unheard of that a deported felon returns to the United States.  Again, the 
prosecution did not give itself enough time to permit an adequate investigation of 
his whereabouts.‖ 
The Court of Appeal‘s analysis is flawed in several respects.  First, its 
characterization of Portillo‘s deportation as a ―not unexpected event‖ has no 
evidentiary foundation in the record.  Indeed, defendant has never claimed that the 
prosecution knew or should have known of Portillo‘s immigration status or of any 
pending deportation issue.  Ordinarily, ―[t]he prosecution is not required ‗to keep 
―periodic tabs‖ on every material witness in a criminal case . . . .‘  [Citation.]‖  
(People v. Wilson, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 342.) 
                                                                                                                                                              
 
(footnote continued from previous page) 
 
for trial.  At that time, the trial was scheduled to begin the following Tuesday, 
May 29, 2007, although it was trailed one more day. 
21 
Second, although the timing and competence of the prosecution‘s efforts to 
locate the absent witness within the jurisdiction are important factors in measuring 
good faith and due diligence (e.g., People v. Wilson, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 341-
342; Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 903-904), the Court of Appeal failed to give 
sufficient weight to the information learned by the prosecution during its search 
efforts, i.e., that Portillo, a foreign national, had been deported eight months before 
to a country that lacked an agreement with the United States for procuring a 
witness‘s attendance at a trial in this state.  Thus, even assuming the prosecution 
should have started its search weeks earlier, further efforts to locate Portillo in 
California would have been futile and hence were unnecessary.  (Ohio v. Roberts, 
supra, 448 U.S. at p. 74 [futile acts not required]; Smith, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 
610-611; see People v. Cavazos (1944) 25 Cal.2d 198, 201 [when military 
authorities inform the prosecution that witnesses in the armed forces were outside 
the court‘s jurisdiction, ―it would have been an idle act to require further inquiry 
or search in this state‖].)13 
Third, the Court of Appeal‘s suggestion that Portillo might have returned 
on his own to California was pure conjecture.  Wood‘s search efforts turned up no 
indication that Portillo had returned from El Salvador.  A check of the law 
enforcement database, and Wood‘s discovery that warrants for Portillo remained 
unexecuted, confirmed that Portillo had not had any contact with authorities.14  
                                              
13  
Our conclusion on this point disposes of defendant‘s specific contention 
that good faith and due diligence obligated the prosecution to track down and 
speak with Portillo‘s last known attorney, his local KPC gang associates, and his 
child, mother, and sister living in Santa Ana, California. 
14  
Portillo made clear at the June 19, 2006, preliminary hearing that he had 
been on probation before, that he would go to great lengths to avoid being charged 
with a probation violation, and that he understood he would be placed on three 
 
(footnote continued on next page) 
22 
Moreover, a woman living at Portillo‘s former address did not recognize him, and 
distribution of wanted flyers in the region resulted in no helpful information.  As 
the dissenting justice below observed, while ―deported felons may return to the 
United States, . . . the facts here do not support this assumption.‖ 
Finally, the Court of Appeal did not specify what more the prosecution 
should have done to obtain Portillo‘s return to this country had it started its search 
weeks before the trial date and discovered the fact of his deportation sooner.15  No 
matter.  It is speculative, in the first instance, to maintain that Portillo would have 
been found in El Salvador, if only the prosecution had learned earlier of his 
deportation.  The record contains no indication that, given more time, the 
INTERPOL agents in El Salvador could and would have tried to do more to locate 
Portillo, beyond what they did.  Finally, and in any event, even assuming Portillo 
had been found, there was no international agreement or established procedure for 
procuring further testimony from the absent Salvadoran resident or for obtaining 
his presence at defendant‘s trial. 
Relying on United States v. Bourdet (D.D.C. 2007) 477 F.Supp.2d 164, 
defendant contends that, had Portillo been located in El Salvador, the prosecution 
could have secured his presence in the United States outside the terms of any 
treaty.  Even had Portillo been found, defendant‘s reliance on Bourdet is 
                                                                                                                                                              
 
(footnote continued from previous page) 
 
years of formal probation on a pending felony evading charge if he agreed to 
testify truthfully at the preliminary hearing.  Portillo‘s own words gave rise to the 
reasonable inference that he would be highly reluctant to return to the United 
States to face a likely probation violation charge for failing to report to his 
probation officer while absent from the United States. 
15  
The Court of Appeal does not indicate what date it believed the 
prosecution‘s search for Portillo should have started. 
23 
misplaced.  In Bourdet, the defendants were Guatemalan nationals who were 
arrested in El Salvador for alleged drug dealing and then flown to the United 
States.  (Bourdet, at pp. 169-170.)  Agents of the United States Drug Enforcement 
Administration had coordinated the arrests with the Salvadoran authorities, but did 
not direct or otherwise control the arrests.  (Id. at p. 170.)  On appeal, the 
defendants contended they were brought from El Salvador to the United States in 
violation of international treaties and United States law.  (Id. at p. 177.)  The 
United States government conceded that the defendants were not ―extradited‖ 
from El Salvador, and that their ―presence in the United States was acquired 
outside the terms of the treaty‖ between the two countries.  (Ibid.)  Despite this 
concession, Bourdet determined the government‘s method of rendition did not 
violate the treaty.  (Id. at p. 178.)  Nothing in Bourdet has any bearing on the 
prosecution‘s obligation of good faith in the confrontation clause context.  
 
CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION 
For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial court properly admitted 
Portillo‘s preliminary hearing testimony at defendant‘s trial.  Based on the 
undisputed testimony presented to that court, we agree the prosecution satisfied its 
obligations of good faith and due diligence in demonstrating Portillo‘s 
unavailability as a witness, and find the Court of Appeal erred in determining 
otherwise.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is 
remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BAXTER, J. 
WE CONCUR: 
GEORGE, C.J. 
KENNARD, J. 
CHIN, J. 
MORENO, J. 
CORRIGAN, J.
1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCURRING OPINION BY WERDEGAR, J. 
 
As the majority frames the issue, this case requires that we consider what 
prosecutorial efforts will sustain a finding of unavailability when the absent 
witness was not in this jurisdiction but in another country.  (Maj. opn., ante, at 
p. 10.)  The majority concludes that if evidence supports the trial court‘s finding 
that the witness was out of the country and in a country for which no treaty exists 
for the production of witnesses for trials in the United States, the prosecution has 
―fulfilled its obligation of good faith and due diligence‖ (id. at p. 19) in 
demonstrating the witness‘s unavailability; consequently, the trial court properly 
admitted Portillo‘s preliminary hearing testimony (ibid.; see also id. at p. 24).  I 
concur that the trial court properly admitted Portillo‘s preliminary hearing 
testimony at defendant‘s trial.  I do so, however, not on grounds the prosecution 
exercised due diligence, but on grounds of harmless error; as the majority states, 
―even assuming the prosecution should have started its search weeks earlier, 
further efforts to locate Portillo in California would have been futile.‖  (Id. at 
p. 21.) 
The facts of this case are analogous to a situation in which the prosecution 
is unjustifiably late in beginning its search for a witness, but then discovers the 
witness died several months earlier.  In that situation, even had the prosecution 
commenced its search in a timely manner, the result would be the same.  Hence, 
2 
any dereliction of the prosecution‘s duty to exercise due diligence to procure the 
witness‘s attendance at trial would be harmless. 
The same is true here.  Evidence showed Portillo had been deported to El 
Salvador eight months before trial.  The prosecution did not begin looking for him 
until the last court day before the trial was scheduled to begin.  But even had the 
prosecution begun its search several days or weeks earlier, it would merely have 
discovered Portillo was out of the country and immune from the court‘s process.  
In short, even had the prosecution been reasonably diligent, the result would have 
been the same. 
Although I thus agree with the majority‘s decision to reverse the Court of 
Appeal‘s contrary ruling, I do not join that part of its analysis that concludes the 
prosecution satisfied its obligation of exercising due diligence in seeking to locate 
Portillo.  As the majority relates, trial was scheduled for March 7, 2007, but was 
continued two months to May 21 because neither side was ready.  On and after 
May 21 the trial was trailed three times, but by Friday, May 25, it was fairly 
certain the trial would commence on the next court day, Tuesday, May 29.  Only 
then did investigator Wood begin to search for Portillo.  ―We have said that the 
term ‗due diligence‘ is ‗incapable of a mechanical definition,‘ but it ‗connotes 
persevering application, untiring efforts in good earnest, efforts of a substantial 
character.‘ ‖  (People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 904, italics added.)  In 
measuring the prosecution‘s diligence, the timeliness of the search and the 
importance of the witness‘s proffered testimony are important factors.  (Ibid.)  
In my view, the prosecution‘s belated efforts to locate Portillo—its star 
witness—do not satisfy this rigorous standard.  Rather, in finding good faith and 
due diligence, the majority seems to be assessing the prosecution‘s efforts in 
hindsight; that is, because ultimately the evidence showed any reasonable efforts 
3 
to locate Portillo would have been futile, the majority concludes the prosecution‘s 
efforts, however meager, were sufficient.  But harmless error is not due diligence.  
In light of the overall importance of the right to confront adverse witnesses, 
I cannot join the majority‘s holding that the prosecution‘s efforts in this case 
demonstrated good faith and due diligence.  But because on the facts of this case 
the prosecution‘s lack of diligence was harmless, I concur in the judgment. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WERDEGAR, J. 
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion People v. Herrera 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion XXX NP opn. filed 5/26/09 – 4th Dist., Div. 3 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S171895 
Date Filed: July 1, 2010 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: Orange 
Judge: Daniel J. Didier 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Appellant: 
 
Waldemar D. Halka, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Respondent: 
 
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. 
Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne G. McGinnis, Steven Oetting and Kelley A. Johnson, Deputy 
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
Waldemar D. Halka 
P.O. Box 99965 
San Diego, CA  92169 
(858) 273-8626 
 
Kelley A. Johnson 
Deputy Attorney General 
110 West A Street, Suite 1100 
San Diego, CA  92101 
(619) 645-3155