When a woman refused to testify against a man accused of assaulting her, a Los Angeles County judge used the accusations she made the night of the incident that were recorded on a police officer鈥檚 body camera.
This week, the that the judge erred by using the body camera footage to stand in for the woman鈥檚 testimony. Doing so, the court ruled, denied the accused man a chance to confront his accuser in court.
鈥淲e emphasize that a defendant鈥檚 due process right to confront testimonial witnesses against him is not absolute,鈥� the high court ruled in an opinion issued Monday.
鈥淲hat cannot be done, however, is reducing the analysis to a single determination that hinges solely on whether a statement qualifies as a spontaneous statement.鈥�
The ruling comes as body cameras have become more common in California police departments, most recently this year .
While body cameras are not mandatory among California agencies, last year and found that some of the largest police and sheriff鈥檚 departments in the state have given body cameras to all of their uniformed officers.
Body camera footage of alleged criminal incidents can be used as evidence in court and in disciplinary proceedings against police officers. The new ruling limits its use with respect to statements made on camera.
Prosecutors, including the state Department of Justice, had urged the court to admit the body camera footage, partly because it related to a suspect who was on probation.
Statements made outside of court that cannot be verified at trial are called hearsay, and are generally prohibited. But there are exceptions, one of them being 鈥�,鈥� which are statements made in the moment that don鈥檛 leave time for deliberation. Courts have found that these statements tend to accurately reflect what a person was thinking when they said something.
In the case before the Supreme Court this week, a woman called 911 in March 2019, reporting that someone was trying to break into the house where she was working as an aide to a person with a disability.
Responding officers found damage to the front door and Dontrae R. Gray in the back of the house. The woman had bruises and a scratch on her face, and told an officer wearing a body camera that Gray kicked in the door and assaulted her. Gray was on probation for a previous, unrelated assault.
A few days later, the woman partially recanted her story, which is , and refused to appear at Gray鈥檚 criminal trial despite a subpoena. Los Angeles County prosecutors tried to introduce the body camera evidence, but a judge refused to allow it.
The criminal case was dismissed, but prosecutors asked a judge to revoke Gray鈥檚 probation, and again tried to use the body camera footage as evidence. This time, it worked.
Body camera footage a 鈥榰nique opportunity鈥�
The judge at Gray鈥檚 probation revocation hearing ruled that the woman鈥檚 statements in the body camera footage indeed qualified as a spontaneous statement, revoked Gray鈥檚 probation and ordered him to serve a suspended sentence of seven years in prison.
鈥淭he court actually has the unique opportunity to actually see her, hear her and see her,鈥� Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Renee Korn, according to trial transcripts cited on appeal. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not just an audiotape. It鈥檚 not just the reiteration of an officer of these statements.
鈥淩ather, it鈥檚 actual video footage of who she is and how she presented at the time. (It) gives the court ample basis to find the defendant in violation of probation.鈥�
On appeal, Gray said the decision to introduce the body camera footage as testimony violated his due process rights. State prosecutors replied in briefs to a state appellate court that due process rights at probation hearings are 鈥渇lexible.鈥�
鈥淧robationers at revocation hearings are not entitled to the full array of constitutional rights available to defendants at criminal trials,鈥� prosecutors led by Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote, 鈥渂ecause probationers, having been validly convicted of crimes, have already been afforded the full panoply of constitutional trial rights in the criminal proceedings that resulted in their convictions.鈥�
A California appellate court agreed and affirmed the decision to revoke his probation. Then the case went to the state Supreme Court.
California rulings on probation revocation
Previous probation revocation cases relying solely on paper evidence offered varying results.
In one 1981 case, the Supreme Court rejected prosecutors鈥� use of a trial court transcript in lieu of a witness鈥檚 testimony. Another case affirmed prosecutors鈥� use of hotel and car rental receipts to prove a defendant had broken the rules of his probation by traveling out of state.
This week, the high court agreed that defendants have the right to due process, including the right to confront their accuser.
鈥淭he Attorney General asserts that the particular reliability and unique nature of spontaneous statements make them categorically admissible under the due process clause, without requiring a further finding of good cause or a balancing,鈥� the court ruled. 鈥淲e reject this categorical approach.鈥�
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Second Appellate District.
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.