Opinion ID: 2632408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Hold a Preliminary Fact Hearing

Text: Defendant also argues that the trial court should have held a preliminary fact hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 402 to determine whether Joseph had fabricated his testimony regarding Alfred. Evidence Code section 402 provides that [w]hen the existence of a preliminary fact is disputed, its existence or nonexistence shall be determined as provided in this article. (Evid.Code, § 402, subd. (a).) Defendant asserts that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to conduct a preliminary fact hearing to determine whether the statement had actually ever been made. He contends that it is not clear whether defendant and Joseph had, in fact, been placed in holding cells next to each other and, if so, why this occurred. Issues regarding a witness's credibility are properly left to the jury, and are not a proper subject of an Evidence Code section 402 hearing. Whether a statement had actually ever been made was for the jury to determine. In any event, defendant did not dispute that he and Joseph had been in adjacent holding cells at trial and provides no authority supporting his contention that the trial court has a sua sponte duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine a preliminary fact.