Opinion ID: 2615193
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sarah's Preliminary Hearing Testimony

Text: Section 1291, subdivision (a), of the Evidence Code permits the admission of preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who is unavailable as a witness at trial. A witness is deemed unavailable if he or she is unable to attend or to testify at the hearing because of then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity. (Evid. Code, § 240, subd. (3).) It may be seen that the relevant statutes do not purport to require that the showing of unavailability by reason of mental illness or infirmity must be established by expert medical or psychiatric testimony. Indeed, the majority readily concedes that no appellate court decision requires such testimony as a precondition to establishing unavailability. ( Ante, p. 517.) In the present case, Sarah's mother testified at length regarding Sarah's deteriorating mental health. As aptly described by Justice Compton in his opinion for the unanimous Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, in this case: The court relied upon testimony of Sarah's mother who stated that Sarah was hospitalized at a psychiatric center for treatment, that she was emotionally unstable, prone to suicide attempts and that her previous experience of incarceration as a recalcitrant witness during the preliminary hearing had left her extremely fearful of returning to a court to testify. The mother also related a several year history of audio and visual hallucinations experienced by the victim which would be exacerbated by stressful situations such as testifying in the present case. The trial court also read the testimony of Sarah as contained in the transcript of the preliminary hearing. Evidence Code section 240, subdivision (a)(3), defines `unavailable' as a witness as `Dead or unable to attend or to testify at the hearing because of then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity.' Under the circumstances of this case there was no abuse of discretion. It is clear that the victim was suffering from an existing mental infirmity and would be further disabled if subjected to the rigors of a trial. It was not necessary to establish this infirmity by the testimony of a physician. `[I]llness or infirmity must be of comparative severity; it must exist to such a degree as to render the witness' attendance, or his testifying, relatively impossible and not merely inconvenient. However, we cannot say just what illness or infirmity must be shown or the degree of its severity, leaving that determination to a trial court's exercise of discretion.' ( People v. Gomez (1972) 26 Cal. App.3d 225, at p. 230 [103 Cal. Rptr. 80].) Indeed, the preliminary hearing transcript itself fully supports the testimony of Sarah's mother regarding Sarah's mental infirmity and consequent unavailability at trial. Sarah was a very uncooperative witness throughout her examination, giving contradictory or ambiguous responses and refusing to elaborate upon the few incidents of sexual abuse which she reluctantly admitted had occurred. At the conclusion of her testimony, when asked if she had told a detective that her stepfather had committed a particular act, she first replied I don't remember, and then simply answered I'm not going to answer any more of that. The court ordered her to answer or I'll put you in jail until you do. Sarah remained obstinate, twice replying I'm not going to answer it. Accordingly, she was ordered into temporary custody at juvenile hall for contempt of court. On such a record, the trial court clearly exercised common sense and acted well within its discretion in finding that Sarah was unavailable within the meaning of Evidence Code sections 240 and 1291. (See People v. Rojas (1975) 15 Cal.3d 540, 551 [125 Cal. Rptr. 357, 542 P.2d 229, 92 A.L.R.3d 1127] [witness' refusal to testify constitutes unavailability].) I would affirm the judgment.