People v. Summers CA1/5
A144345
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Defendant Kyle Summers was placed on 3 years’ probation (suspended execution of a 7‑year sentence) conditioned on completing a residential drug treatment program (Jericho) and not leaving without prior written consent.
- Jericho sent a one‑page discharge letter dated June 23, 2014, to Summers’s probation officer (Dunaway) stating Summers was discharged for being argumentative, confrontational, and aggressive and had to be escorted off the premises.
- Dunaway testified she received the letter by fax and mail, that probation routinely relied on Jericho communications, that Summers called her saying he had been discharged (or that staff had put their hands on him), and that she spoke briefly to a Jericho staffer named Nick who confirmed he had to be escorted off.
- Defense objected to the Jericho letter as hearsay and argued admission violated Summers’s confrontation and due process rights; the court admitted the letter only to prove the fact of discharge, not the reasons stated in it.
- No defense evidence was offered. The court found Summers violated probation by leaving the program without required consent and revoked probation; Summers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Jericho discharge letter at probation revocation hearing | Letter is a routine contemporaneous program document with sufficient indicia of reliability and may be admitted under the relaxed rules governing probation revocations | Letter is inadmissible hearsay; admission violated Summers’s confrontation, cross‑examination, and due process rights because it contains testimonial/nonroutine statements about why he was discharged | Court admitted the letter only to prove the fact of discharge (not the stated reasons); found sufficient indicia of reliability and no good‑cause requirement was needed for this routine documentary hearsay |
| Whether live confrontation/cross‑examination was required for statements in the letter | Documentary program reports can be admitted on a reliability showing; full confrontation (good cause) is not required for routine documentary hearsay | The statements are testimonial/nonroutine and defense was deprived of meaningful cross‑examination about circumstances of discharge | Court held due process permits limited confrontation at probation revocation hearings; testimonial hearsay requires good cause, but the discharge letter was routine documentary hearsay admissible on indicia of reliability and was not admitted for the truth of the alleged misconduct |
| Whether corroboration was sufficient to establish reliability of the letter | Probation officer’s receipt of the letter, receipt by fax/mail, Summers’s call to probation, and Nick’s confirmation provided corroboration | Corroboration was weak; Summers’s statements did not clearly say he was discharged and the letter lacked eyewitness foundation | Court found multiple indicia of reliability (timeliness, routine practice, corroborating communications) sufficient to admit the letter as to discharge |
| Whether the facts (e.g., alleged staff conduct) required cross‑examination to determine willfulness of violation | Only the fact of absence from the program mattered to violation; reasons for leaving were irrelevant to the limited issue before the court | If Summers left due to staff assault, that would negate willfulness and required cross‑examination and live testimony | Court held the reasons for leaving were extraneous to the probation condition (completion of program); absence without consent supported revocation and defense could have offered witnesses but did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process requires right to confrontation/cross‑examination at probation revocation absent good cause)
- People v. Maki, 39 Cal.3d 707 (Cal. 1985) (routine documentary hearsay admissible on showing of indicia of reliability)
- People v. Arreola, 7 Cal.4th 1144 (Cal. 1994) (distinguishing routine documentary hearsay from testimonial hearsay)
- In re Eddie M., 31 Cal.4th 480 (Cal. 2003) (relaxed rules of evidence govern probation revocation proceedings)
- People v. Johnson, 121 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (laboratory report admissible at revocation on reliability showing)
- People v. O'Connell, 107 Cal.App.4th 1062 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (treatment program reports bear indicia of reliability and may be admitted to prove compliance/status)
- People v. Shepherd, 151 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (probation officer’s testimony recounting others’ statements about defendant’s conduct treated as testimonial hearsay requiring good cause)