Court Opinion

ID: 9568844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:07:58.0427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:10:03.711303
License: Public Domain

DOOLING, J.
I concur. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the inference that solicitation by known prostitutes was permitted in this tavern. I do not understand that this court, is holding that the failure to object to hearsay evidence in an administrative proceeding to which section 11513, Government Code, is applicable would result in the hearsay evidence alone being sufficient to support a finding. The section itself makes hearsay admissible and hence no effective objection to its introduction could be interposed, and the section itself limits the probative value of such evidence: it “shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil action.” I want to make it perfectly clear that this limitation on the effect of hearsay evidence in proceedings to which section 11513 is applicable, in my judgment, is not dependent upon whether or not an objection is made to its admission.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 21, 1954.