Legal Opinion
People v. Wimberly
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 9, 1992No. B057574PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WOODS (Fred), J.
Dispositive of this appeal are two related Proposition 115 1 preliminary hearing issues: (1) was the officer who testified to hearsay statements qualified to do so and (2) were those multiple hearsay statements admissible pursuant to Penal Code 2 section 872, subdivision (b)? We conclude that under Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 160, 820 P.2d 262] the officer was section 872, subdivision (b) qualified but the multiple hearsay statements he testified to were inadmissible. Accordingly, we affirm the order (§ 995) setting aside the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- People v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- People v. LaiwaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Whitman v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Montez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. SallyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- People v. ShafrirCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Thang Quy Tu v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Correa v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- People v. WangCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.