People v. Davenport
314 Cal.Rptr.3d 167
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background:
- In 2007 William Davenport pleaded no contest to second-degree murder and admitted a firearm enhancement for the January 4, 2007 shooting death of Joe West; he was sentenced to 18 years to life.
- At the 2007 preliminary hearing, eyewitness Malisa (Malisa) Hardiamon testified that Davenport approached the parked car, pointed a gun near Hardiamon’s face, and fired multiple times, killing West; Detective Cook also testified about the scene.
- Davenport later petitioned for resentencing under former §1170.95 (now §1172.6). The trial court denied relief twice at the prima facie stage; this court reversed both denials and ordered an evidentiary hearing.
- At the §1172.6(d)(3) evidentiary hearing the trial court admitted the preliminary hearing transcript (but excluded Detective Cook’s recounting of another officer’s statement admitted under §872(b)), found beyond a reasonable doubt that Davenport was the actual killer, and denied resentencing.
- Davenport appealed, arguing the court erred by admitting Hardiamon’s preliminary hearing testimony for its truth without a showing of unavailability under Evidence Code §1291.
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Davenport’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether former testimony from a preliminary hearing may be admitted for its truth at a §1172.6(d)(3) merits hearing without showing witness unavailability | §1172.6(d)(3) allows the court to consider evidence previously admitted at prior hearings that is "admissible under current law," including prior witness testimony; that furnishes a hearsay exception for former preliminary hearing testimony | Former testimony is hearsay and must meet Evidence Code exceptions; admission requires unavailability under Evid. Code §1291 (i.e., the statute of "current law" requires the usual hearsay predicates) | The court held §1172.6(d)(3) permits admission of prior preliminary hearing testimony for its truth without a separate §1291 unavailability showing; denying that reading would render the statutory exception superfluous and convert merits hearings into de facto new trials. |
| Whether testimony admitted at a preliminary hearing pursuant to Evid. Code §872(b) (law‑enforcement hearsay) is admissible at the §1172.6 hearing | The People conceded §872(b) testimony is excluded by §1172.6(d)(3)’s carve‑out for that form of hearsay | Davenport argued broader exclusions should apply, but focused on §872(b) and general hearsay concerns | The court excluded §872(b) testimony (Detective Cook’s recounting of Officer Goley) as expressly barred by §1172.6(d)(3), while admitting other properly admitted former testimony (e.g., Hardiamon’s). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cody, 92 Cal.App.5th 87 (supports admitting former testimony under §1172.6(d)(3) without requiring unavailability)
- People v. Davenport, 71 Cal.App.5th 476 (Davenport II) (prior appellate reversal holding court erred considering preliminary hearing facts at prima facie stage)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (discusses the scope of the record of conviction and weight to give prior factual summaries)
- People v. Clements, 75 Cal.App.5th 276 (clarifies trial judges should not rely on factual summaries in prior appellate opinions at merits hearings)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (illustrates case‑specific hearsay concerns cited by court)