People v. Hall, 39 Cal.App.5th 831

In 1996 Hall pleaded nolo contendere to a felony transportation of marijuana conviction under former Health & Safety Code § 11360(a).
Arresting deputies reported finding a backpack in the trunk containing a “large amount” of marijuana, 18 small zip‑lock baggies and a small scale; a probation report (based on the D.A. packet) stated the weight was approximately one pound.
In 2018 Hall petitioned under Proposition 64 to dismiss or redesignate the 1996 felony; the trial court redesignated it a misdemeanor but denied dismissal, finding sufficient evidence he transported for sale.
Hall objected that the trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay in the arrest and probation reports; the court admitted them as reliable hearsay and under the official‑records exception.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that reliable hearsay in arrest and probation reports may be considered at a Proposition 64 eligibility hearing and that the reports here provided clear and convincing evidence Hall transported marijuana for sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may consider hearsay in arrest/probation reports to determine Prop 64 eligibility	People: Yes — reliable hearsay and official‑records exception admissible in sentencing/resentencing‑type proceedings	Hall: No — Evidence Code hearsay rule and confrontation principles bar use of unsworn hearsay to disprove eligibility	Held: Reliable hearsay admissible; court may consider arrest reports under official‑records exception and probation reports if sufficiently reliable
Whether arrest reports are excluded by People v. Sanchez/Crawford concerns	People: Sanchez addressed expert reliance on testimonial hearsay in criminal trials; does not bar admission here	Hall: Sanchez means police reports cannot be used without confrontation protections	Held: Sanchez/Crawford do not prohibit admission in this non‑criminal, postconviction leniency proceeding; Confrontation Clause inapplicable here
Whether the probation report’s one‑pound statement and deputies’ observations satisfy clear and convincing proof of intent to transport for sale	People: The combined facts (quantity, baggies, scale) reliably indicate intent to sell; probation officer likely relied on criminalist report	Hall: The reports are inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to meet clear and convincing standard	Held: The reports were sufficiently reliable and, together, constituted clear and convincing evidence of transport for sale

People v. Sledge, 7 Cal.App.5th 1089 (2017) (probation report hearsay admissible in resentencing proceedings when reliable)
People v. Maki, 39 Cal.3d 707 (1985) (documentary hearsay may be admitted at probation revocation hearings if reliable)
People v. Reed, 13 Cal.4th 217 (1996) (probation report hearsay inadmissible to prove contested facts for sentence‑enhancement where hearsay not shown to fit an exception)
People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (2006) (post‑plea statements in probation reports are not part of the record of conviction for purposes of determining qualifying prior offenses)
People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (discussing Crawford and limits on use of testimonial hearsay in criminal trials; not dispositive for postconviction lenity proceedings)
People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (1978) (sentencing judges may consider responsible unsworn out‑of‑court information)
People v. Banda, 26 Cal.App.5th 349 (2018) (reversed where trial court failed to find probation report reliable before denying Prop 64 relief)