People v. Lopez CA1/1
A143879
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 5, 2016Background
- Defendant Daniel Lopez pleaded guilty to stalking under Penal Code § 646.9(b).
- At sentencing, the Victim Compensation Board (VCB) had paid the victim $5,913; the court ordered that amount but retained jurisdiction to consider further restitution.
- The People later sought an additional $8,417.11, including ~ $6,500 for mental-health counseling; the VCB submitted claim forms showing dates, service codes, and costs.
- Lopez subpoenaed the victim to cross-examine her about the nature, frequency, and fair-market value of counseling; the People opposed, citing re-victimization and VCB payments to providers.
- The trial court allowed Lopez to make an offer of proof, found the redacted records sufficiently detailed, denied the subpoena for the victim, continued the hearing for potential other witnesses, and ultimately awarded the full $8,417.11.
- Lopez appealed, arguing denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the victim violated his due process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant has a constitutional right to cross-examine the victim at a restitution hearing | People: No constitutional right; VCB records are presumptively reliable and adequate | Lopez: Denial to cross-examine victim denied due process and opportunity to challenge restitution | Court: No constitutional right to cross-examine at restitution; due process satisfied by notice, opportunity to challenge, and reliable VCB records |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (defendant has no right to cross-examine probation report preparer at sentencing; trial court discretion on when in-court testimony required)
- People v. Cain, 82 Cal.App.4th 81 (no state or federal constitutional right to cross-examine psychotherapist at restitution; due process satisfied by ability to present contrary evidence and reliable governmental records)
- People v. Prosser, 157 Cal.App.4th 682 (restitution hearings need not follow formal evidentiary rules; trial court has broad discretion on sources of information)
- People v. Weatherton, 238 Cal.App.4th 676 (restitution is mandatory and sentencing-stage procedures are less formal)
- People v. Garcia, 185 Cal.App.4th 1203 (illustrative case where victim testimony was allowed; does not create a universal confrontation right)