Sally

People v. Sally

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 4th 1621·16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 161·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 99·93 Daily Journal DAR 1566·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 838
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 2, 1993B057290California2,226 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

The People appeal following the defendants’ successful motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995. The motion was granted on the grounds that multiple hearsay evidence introduced by the People through a police officer’s testimony at the preliminary hearing was inadmissible under section 872, subdivision (b) (enacted as a part of Prop. 115, an initiative measure adopted June 5, 1990) and, consequently, there was insufficient evidence to justify the magistrate’s order holding the defendants to answer. Although we find that the multiple hearsay testimony of Deputy Sheriff Ronald Payne at the preliminary hearing was inadmissible pursuant to Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 160 , 820 P.2d 262 ], other evidence was presented by the People sufficient to establish a prima facie case. We therefore reverse the order of the superior court setting aside the information.

Factual and Procedural Background

The district attorney charged defendant James Hayward Sally with grand theft (§ 487, subd. 1) of aluminum rims from D & S Metal Polishing, and charged defendants Phillip Cathcart and Justin Wayne Kemp with receiving stolen…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.