Opinion ID: 2569983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: standard of review

Text: Of the several cases in which we have considered whether a district court properly admitted preliminary hearing testimony in a criminal case, none state a standard of review. [8] We generally review a district court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion; [9] however, we review various issues regarding the admissibility of evidence that implicate constitutional rights as mixed questions of law and fact subject to de novo review. [10] We have noted that review of a district court's decision as a mixed question of law and fact is appropriate where the determination, although based on factual conclusions, requires distinctively legal analysis. [11] Use of preliminary hearing testimony without a showing that the State made a good faith effort to procure the witness's attendance violates a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, thereby implicating his or her constitutional rights. [12] Furthermore, the determination that the State exercised reasonable diligence to procure the witness's attendance is based on factual findings, but a distinctly legal analysis is required to determine whether the efforts satisfy constitutional standards of reasonableness. [13] Therefore, applying a mixed question of law and fact standard of review may be more appropriate. In practice, we have reviewed issues regarding the admissibility of prior testimony as mixed questions of law and fact, although we have not expressly adopted that standard. We have typically reviewed a district court's factual findings, without questioning the validity of those findings, and then independently reviewed whether those facts constituted reasonable diligence in procuring a witness. [14] We now expressly adopt that standard for reviewing a district court's determination that the prosecution exercised constitutionally reasonable diligence to procure a witness's attendance. As a mixed question of law and fact, we will give deference to the district court's findings of fact but will independently review whether those facts satisfy the legal standard of reasonable diligence. [15]