Opinion ID: 2598779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admitting Preliminary Hearing Testimony of a Witness

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting the preliminary hearing testimony of Mitsuhiro Fukumoto, Toyoshima's boyfriend who had been on the bus with her and defendant, in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The prosecution and defense had arranged to take Fukumoto's preliminary hearing testimony on April 16, 1990, about two months before the rest of the preliminary hearing, so that he could testify before he left the country. He testified that he was a foreign exchange student from Tokyo, Japan, and expected to be in the United States until his graduation from high school in June 1991. The attorney who represented defendant at the time cross-examined Fukumoto at length. At trial in February 1992, the district attorney sought to have Fukumoto's preliminary hearing testimony read to the jury because he was unavailable within the meaning of Evidence Code section 240. The district attorney represented that he had received a telephone call from Fukumoto's host parent in San Diego saying that Fukumoto had left the country. The court accepted the district attorney's representation as an officer of the court without requiring him to testify formally. The district attorney also offered to call a witness to show that Fukumoto was no longer in the country, partly to support the fact that the prosecution made a good faith effort to secure the attendance of this witness. He called Grant Cunningham, an investigator for the district attorney's office. Cunningham testified that about six days previously, in an attempt to locate Fukumoto, he had called what the district attorney's records indicated was Fukumoto's telephone number in Japan. He asked to speak to Mitsuhiro Fukumoto. A male voice answered, Yes, this is me. When defendant objected that the testimony was hearsay, the court admitted it to show what the investigator did, but not for the truth of the matter asserted. The district attorney argued that a good faith effort relates to the information that this witness had available to him, and thus the testimony had a nonhearsay purpose. On questioning by the court, Cunningham testified that he felt he was unable to compel Fukumoto's presence in court because he was in Japan. After the hearing, the court found that Fukumoto was unavailable as a witness within the meaning of Evidence Code section 240. Fukumoto's preliminary hearing testimony was then read to the jury. A defendant has a constitutional right to confront witnesses, but this right is not absolute. If a witness is unavailable at trial and has testified at a previous judicial proceeding against the same defendant and was subject to cross-examination by that defendant, the previous testimony may be admitted at trial. ( Barber v. Page (1968) 390 U.S. 719, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255; People v. Enriquez (1977) 19 Cal.3d 221, 235, 137 Cal. Rptr. 171, 561 P.2d 261, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 901, fn. 3, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 15 P.3d 243; Evid.Code, ง 1291.) The constitutional right to confront witnesses mandates that, before a witness can be found unavailable, the prosecution must have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. ( Barber v. Page, supra, at p. 725, 88 S.Ct. 1318, quoted in People v. Enriquez, supra, at p. 235, 137 Cal.Rptr. 171, 561 P.2d 261; see also Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56, 74, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597.) The California Evidence Code contains a similar requirement. As relevant, it provides that to establish unavailability, the proponent of the evidence, here the prosecution, must establish that the witness is absent from the hearing and either that the court is unable to compel his or her attendance by its process (Evid.Code, ง 240, subd. (a)(4)) or that the proponent has exercised reasonable diligence but has been unable to procure his or her attendance by the court's process (Evid.Code, ง 240, subd. (a)(5)). The constitutional and statutory requirements are in harmony. ( People v. Enriquez, supra, at p. 235, 137 Cal.Rptr. 171, 561 P.2d 261.) The proponent of the evidence has the burden of showing by competent evidence that the witness is unavailable. ( People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 424, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) Defendant does not dispute that if Fukumoto were in Japan, he would have been unavailable. But defendant argues the prosecution showed that he was in Japan only by hearsay, which is not competent evidence. The Attorney General responds that defendant did not object on hearsay grounds to the district attorney's representation that Fukumoto's host parent had told him that Fukumoto had left the country. We disagree. Defendant objected on hearsay grounds repeatedly throughout the hearing. It was clear he was objecting to all hearsay. The court admitted the hearsay evidence merely to show what the prosecution did, but not for the truth of the matter asserted. The Attorney General also argues that Fukumoto's preliminary hearing testimony that he intended to leave the country in June 1991 was admissible as a statement of intent to do a future act under Evidence Code section 1250. (See Assem. Com. on Judiciary com., 29B pt. 4 West's Ann. Evid.Code (1995 ed.) foll. ง 1250, p. 280[[A] statement of the declarant's intent to do certain acts is admissible to prove that he did those acts]; People v. Alcalde (1944) 24 Cal.2d 177, 185-188, 148 P.2d 627.) We need not decide whether the testimony was admissible for that purpose or was sufficient to sustain a finding that he was, in fact, out of the country at the time of trial. This is because the prosecution did not have to prove Fukumoto was actually out of the country. It only had to prove that it had exercised reasonable or due diligence (the terms are interchangeable; People v. Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 898, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 15 P.3d 243) or, as stated in the equivalent federal constitutional language, had made a good faith effort to obtain the witness's presence at trial. As relevant, Evidence Code section 240 provides two closely related but slightly different ways in which a person may be shown to be unavailable. In this case, the prosecution could either show that Fukumoto was absent and the court is unable to compel his ... attendance by its process, i.e., that he was in Japan, or that he was absent and it has exercised reasonable diligence but has been unable to procure his ... attendance by the court's process. (Evid.Code, ง 240, subd. (a)(4), (5).) As this case demonstrates, trying to prove a person is, in fact, outside the country can raise substantial practical difficulties because of the hearsay rule. But the due diligence requirement is different. That requirement focuses on what the proponent of the evidence, here the prosecution, did, that is, whether it made reasonable efforts to obtain the witness. The statements by the host parent and the male voice at the end of the line at the Japanese telephone number were admissible on this question, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to show what efforts the prosecution made to ascertain Fukumoto's whereabouts. At trial, the prosecution and court treated these two portions of Evidence Code section 240 somewhat interchangeably. In its ruling, the court referred to both provisions, although its ultimate finding was that Fukumoto is a resident of the country of Japan and therefore is not subject to the process of this court to compel his attendance. The court did not specifically find the prosecution had exercised due diligence to try to procure Fukumoto's attendance. When, as here, the facts are undisputed, a reviewing court decides the question of due diligence independently, not deferentially. ( People v. Cromer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 900-901, 103 Cal. Rptr.2d 23, 15 P.3d 243.) In this case, reviewing the record independently, we conclude the prosecution satisfied its burden of showing due diligence. The prosecution obtained 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. 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. The prosecution must take reasonable steps to locate an absent witness, but need not do a futile act. ( Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. at p. 74, 100 S.Ct. 2531.) The prosecution did locate Fukumoto, but in Japan, outside the court's jurisdiction. In the functioning world outside the courtroom, people often rely on hearsay and, under the circumstances of this case, the prosecution reasonably did so. The prosecution met its burden of showing due diligence, and the court properly found Fukumoto was unavailable as a witness. [6] Defendant also argues that the court erred in admitting the preliminary hearing testimony because of the differences between a preliminary hearing and a trial. To admit prior testimony of an unavailable witness, the party against whom it is offered, here the defendant, must not only have had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the previous hearing, he must also have had an interest and motive similar to that which he has at the [subsequent] hearing. (Evid.Code, ง 1291, subd. (a)(2); see People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 974-975, 17 Cal. Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704.) Defendant argues that a defendant has less incentive to cross-examine at the preliminary hearing than at trial. However, we have routinely allowed admission of the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness. (E.g., People v. Zapien, supra, at p. 975, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704.) Here, defendant had even greater incentive to cross-examine Fukumoto at the preliminary hearing than is normally the case. The whole point of the early testimony was to allow Fukumoto to testify before he left the country. At that time, defendant knew the witness would likely be unavailable at trial, and the prosecution would seek to use the preliminary hearing testimony. Defendant finally argues that defense counsel failed to ask certain questions while cross-examining Fukumoto. This argument can always be made, as one can always think of additional questions. However, it is the opportunity and motive to cross-examine that matters, not the actual cross-examination. As long as defendant was given the opportunity for effective cross-examination, the statutory requirements were satisfied; the admissibility of this evidence did not depend on whether defendant availed himself fully of that opportunity. ( People v. Zapien, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 975, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 122, 846 P.2d 704.) Accordingly, we find no error in admitting Fukumoto's preliminary hearing testimony.