Miranda

—At the joint preliminary examination of multiple defendants charged with murder and other crimes, the prosecutor sought to admit, as against defendant Luis Miranda and a codefendant, Daniel Morales, the testimony of an investigating officer relating the confession of a nontestifying codefendant, Jose Canela, implicating defendant and Morales in the crimes. Was the officer’s testimony, which probably would have been inadmissible at the defendant’s trial as a violation of the state hearsay rule or state and federal confrontation principles (see Lilly v. Virginia (1999) 527 U.S. 116, 132-133 [ 119 S.Ct. 1887, 1898 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 ] (Lilly); Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123, 136 [ 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1628 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 ]; People v. Fletcher (1996) 13 Cal.4th 451, 460-465 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 572 , 917 P.2d 187 ]), nonetheless admissible against defendant at his preliminary examination? We conclude that the testimony was admissible for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause to hold defendant for trial.

In this case, the People appealed from an order denying a motion to reinstate a felony complaint against defendant Miranda charging him with two counts of…