Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hearsay Objection to Airplane Hill Testimony

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his hearsay objection to testimony by William Smith, a long-time resident of Huntington Beach, that the location where the body of John Doe Huntington Beach was found had formerly been known as Airplane Hill. (AIRPLANE HILL was an entry on the list found in defendant's car.) Outside the presence of the jury, the prosecution offered to prove, through Smith's testimony, that, in the 1940's and 1950's, the area was so called because of a steep dip in the road that was capable of causing cars travelling at a certain minimum speed to become airborne. Around 1960 the road had been filled in to carry truck traffic. On appeal, defendant renews his hearsay objection. As did the trial court, we conclude it lacks merit. Smith's testimony related not out-of-court statements by others, but rather an unofficial place name known to him through his own personal experience, and thus did not constitute hearsay. (Evid.Code, ї 1200.) By logical extension of defendant's reasoning, any name of a person, place or thing would be inadmissible hearsay, including the testimony of his own witnesses regarding alternative sites for Airplane Hill. He cites no authority for the proposition, however, and the contrary appears supported by longstanding precedent. (See People v. Watson (1913) 165 Cal. 645, 651-652, 133 P. 298.)