Supreme Court of California Justia
Docket No. S127344A

People v. Cage



Filed 4/9/07 (reposted 4/10/07 to clerically correct caption & text)



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

S127344

v.

Ct.App. 4/2 E034242

LISA MARIE CAGE,

) Riverside

County

Defendant and Appellant.

Super. Ct. No. RIF097168



In Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford), the United

States Supreme Court announced a new standard for determining when the

confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment prohibits the use of hearsay

evidence—i.e., an out-of-court statement offered for its truth—against a criminal

defendant. Crawford held that this clause protects an accused against hearsay

uttered by one who spoke as a “ ‘witness[]’ ” “ ‘bear[ing] testimony’ ” (id. at p.

51) if the declarant neither takes the stand at trial nor was otherwise available for

cross-examination by the accused.

Crawford declined to provide a comprehensive assessment of what kinds of

hearsay fall within “this core class of ‘testimonial’ statements.” (Crawford, supra,
541 U.S. 36, 51.) However, the court concluded that, even under “a narrow

standard,” testimonial statements include those made, during a formal police

interrogation, by one who was herself a suspect in the crime under investigation.

(Id. at p. 52.)

1




State and federal courts have struggled to apply the Crawford concept of

testimonial hearsay. The issue has particular impact in domestic abuse cases,

where the prosecution may have to depend on information supplied outside of

court by the victims—often victims of tender years—because they are not

available to testify at trial.

Here, defendant was convicted of aggravated assault upon her 15-year-old

son. The victim did not testify. The prosecution therefore relied, over defendant’s

state law and confrontation clause objections, on hearsay statements the victim

made to a sheriff’s deputy and to a treating physician. Though Crawford was

decided after defendant’s trial, while her appeal was pending, the high court’s

ruling applies retroactively to her case. We must therefore determine whether the

hearsay statements admitted against her, or any of them, were testimonial for

purposes of the confrontation clause.

In analyzing the issues, we find guidance in a more recent high court

decision, Davis v. Washington (2006) ___ U.S. __ [126 S.Ct. 2266] (Davis),

which clarifies the distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial hearsay.

We conclude that the victim’s statements to the deputy, both in a hospital

emergency room, and later on tape at the sheriff’s station, were testimonial.

Though the two occasions varied in their formality, all the attendant statements

were given as an analog of testimony by a witness—they were made in response

to focused police questioning whose primary purpose, objectively considered, was

not to deal with an ongoing emergency, but to investigate the circumstances of a

crime, i.e., “to ‘establis[h] or prov[e]’ some past fact.” (Davis, supra, ___ U.S.

___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2276].)

We reach a contrary conclusion concerning the victim’s statement to the

physician who treated him at the hospital. In order to help diagnose the nature of

the victim’s slash wound, and to determine the appropriate treatment, the

2



physician asked the victim a single question—“what happened?” The victim

responded that his grandmother held him down while defendant, his mother, cut

him.

The primary purpose of the physician’s general question, objectively

considered, was not to obtain proof of a past criminal act, or the identity of the

perpetrator, for possible use in court, but to deal with a contemporaneous medical

situation that required immediate information about what had caused the victim’s

wound. (See Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2276].) The

victim’s answer was given in that context. The circumstances imposed none of the

“ ‘ “solemn[ity]” ’ ” (id., at p. ___ [126 S.Ct. at p. 2274]) that inheres in an

interview by law enforcement officials, where false statements may constitute

criminal offenses. (Id., at p. ___, fn. 5 [126 S.Ct. at p. 2278].) Hence, the victim’s

statement lacked those attributes of testimony by a witness that are the concern of

the confrontation clause.

Finally, we find that the erroneous admission of the victim’s statements to

the deputy was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We will therefore affirm the

judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed defendant’s conviction.

FACTS

An information charged defendant with assault by means likely to produce

great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)1 For purposes of enhancing

the sentence, it was alleged that she personally used a deadly and dangerous

weapon (§§ 667, 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury

on the victim (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8); 12022.7, subd. (a)). It was further alleged

that she had previously been convicted of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192,


1

All further unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3



subd. (a)), a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)), and that she was a “second strike”

offender (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)).

The following evidence was introduced:2

On May 16, 2001, around 2:30 p.m., Riverside County Deputy Sheriff

Mullin was dispatched to a residence on a report of a family fight. As he

approached the house, he saw a bloody towel and drops of blood. Inside, he found

defendant picking up broken glass. There were two small cuts on her left hand.

The glass top of a nearby coffee table was missing. After speaking to defendant,

her mother, and her daughter Kathy, Mullin departed, having no reason to think a

crime had been committed.

About an hour later, Mullin was dispatched to an intersection a mile or two

away to look for an “injured person.” There he found John F. (John), whom he

ascertained to be defendant’s son, sitting on the curb. There was a large cut on the

left side of John’s face. An ambulance and emergency medical personnel were

already at the scene.

John was taken by ambulance to Riverside County Regional Medical

Center. Mullin did not accompany John in the ambulance, but went to the hospital

“at a later point.” John was still in the emergency room, and had not yet been

treated. Mullin asked John “what had happened between [him] and the

defendant.” John told Mullin the following: John and defendant got into an

argument over a belt, i.e., “she thought he was messing up the house.” She began

pushing him, he fell backward over a coffee table, and the glass top broke. Before


2

There was no petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeal, so we rely

primarily on that court’s statement of the facts (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.500(c)(2)), though we have supplemented the statement by means of our own
close review of the record.

4



he could get up, his grandmother came downstairs and held him. Defendant then

picked up a piece of glass and cut him.

Dr. Russell, a head and neck surgeon at the hospital, treated John after he

was initially evaluated by emergency room physicians. Dr. Russell testified that,

pursuant to his usual practice, the “first thing” he did after introducing himself was

to ask John “what happened.” This was intended to obtain information about

“what the injury might have been caused by, anything that would be relevant to

my taking care of him.” Given the nature of the wound, a deep gash, Dr. Russell

said “the specific reason why I asked him about how it happened” was to

determine whether the cut might contain ground-in debris that must be cleaned out

to prevent infection.

In response to Dr. Russell’s question, John said “he had been held down by

his grandmother and cut by his mother.” Dr. Russell asked no further questions,

but turned his attention to treating the wound. He reported that John’s demeanor

was “quiet and quite respectful,” and that John “seemed scared.”

Dr. Russell said the gash extended five to six inches from the top of John’s

left ear, down across his jaw, and onto his neck. It had a slight backward curve

toward the bottom, was relatively shallow at the top, and became progressively

deeper along its length. It was “a very clean cut,” which “looked like it had been

done with a knife” but was not inconsistent with some other “very sharp”

instrument, such as a piece of broken glass.

On the other hand, Dr. Russell opined, the injury was inconsistent with

someone’s head going through glass, as in a car accident, or standing by a window

that shattered in an explosion, or being the target of thrown glass. In those

instances, said Dr. Russell, he would expect other bruising, multiple “jagged”

lacerations, and “more ripping rather than cutting type wounds.” Dr. Russell

5



added that “rarely do you see one isolated long cut like that with no other injuries

on a body.”

After John was released from the hospital, Deputy Mullin conducted a tape-

recorded interview with him at the police station. On the tape, which was played

for the jury, John stated the following: He had been staying with the defendant.

They got into an argument about a belt he could not find. She would not let him

look for it in a closet. When he returned after looking for it in the garage, she

accused him of “messing up” the garage and told him to leave. She pushed him

onto the coffee table, which broke. His grandmother and his sister Kathy came

downstairs. His grandmother was holding him when defendant picked up “a big

piece of glass” and “slashed me across the face with it.” Defendant tried to do it

again, but he broke free and “took off out the door running.” Defendant “tried to

throw glass at me, but it hit the door.” He heard her say, “[C]all the police.”

Defendant called two witnesses, her son Jermaine (who was seven at the

time of trial and five at the time of the fight) and her daughter Kathy (who was 14

when she testified and 12 at the time of the fight). Jermaine testified as follows:

John had been living with defendant. Jermaine saw them when they were already

fighting. Defendant fell backwards onto the coffee table, with John on top. When

John got up, a piece of glass that was on the floor cut his neck. Jermaine did not

see his grandmother holding John.

Kathy testified as follows: John was not staying with defendant. He

knocked on the door, and defendant told him to leave. They started pushing each

other. John “grabbed [defendant’s] hair and put her against the wall and told her

he was gonna kill her.” He pushed defendant “frontwards” onto the coffee table,

breaking the glass; he fell on top of her. He then got up and ran out. Their

grandmother tried to break up the fight. She did not hold John, and defendant did

not cut him with a piece of glass. Defendant told Kathy to call 911. Kathy

6



admitted that defendant is right-handed (thus suggesting that if she wielded a

shard of glass, she would do so with her right hand against the left side of a person

facing her in a struggle).3

As a rebuttal witness, the prosecution called Elisabeth Fenton, a social

worker for child protective services. Fenton testified as follows: She was

assigned to investigate the incident as a matter of child abuse in order to ascertain

whether defendant’s children were safe in her home. Fenton spoke with

defendant’s daughter Kathy about the incident in which John was injured. Kathy

told Fenton John had been living in defendant’s home for the past month. Kathy

further related to Fenton that, on the day the incident occurred, she was upstairs

watching television, heard noises, and came downstairs, but “did not see John,”

“didn’t know where he’d gone,” and “didn’t know what happened.” Kathy said

her grandmother told her that John and defendant had fought, and that John had

pushed the grandmother, causing her to fall. Fenton insisted Kathy said she had

not seen any of the incident herself.

John did not testify. On the basis of the evidence described above, the jury

found not true that defendant had personally inflicted great bodily injury, but

otherwise sustained the charges and allegations. Defendant received a 13-year

prison sentence.

Prior to trial, the prosecution had sought a ruling that John’s statements to

Mullin and Dr. Russell could be admitted for their truth even if he did not testify.

These statements, the prosecution argued, came within state law hearsay

exceptions for a victim’s report of physical injury (Evid. Code, § 1370), and for

spontaneous statements (id., § 1240). The trial court ruled that all three statements


3

The grandmother died before trial.

7



were admissible as a matter of state law. It further determined that, because the

statements bore particularized indicia of reliability, their admission without an

opportunity for cross-examination did not violate the confrontation clause. (See

Idaho v. Wright (1990) 497 U.S. 805; Ohio v. Roberts (1980) 448 U.S. 56

(Roberts).)

Defendant appealed her conviction, asserting error, both state and federal,

in the admission of John’s statements. While the appeal was pending, the high

court decided Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, which overruled Roberts and

announced a new standard for determining when admission of hearsay statements

violates the confrontation clause.4

The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two affirmed.

The court first determined that all the statements were admissible as a matter of

state law. Then, addressing the confrontation clause issues in light of Crawford,

the court concluded that John’s tape-recorded statement to Deputy Mullin at the

police station was improperly admitted. This statement, the court reasoned,

occurred during a structured police interrogation in pursuit of a criminal

investigation, and was thus the kind of testimonial utterance with which Crawford

was concerned.

However, the Court of Appeal held, John’s earlier statements to Deputy

Mullin and Dr. Russell at the hospital were both admissible. The statement to Dr.

Russell, the court reasoned, was for purposes of treatment, not law enforcement,


4

A new rule announced by the high court applies to all criminal cases still

then pending on appeal. (Schriro v. Summerlin (2004) 542 U.S. 348, 351; but cf.
Whorton v. Bockting (2007) ___U.S.___, ___-___ [127 S.Ct. 1173, 1181-1184]
[Crawford not “watershed” rule retroactive to cases already final on appeal].) No
party disputes Crawford’s application to this case.

8



and the informal hospital statement to Deputy Mullin was not testimony given in

response to a criminal investigation; Mullin was simply trying to determine

whether a crime had even been committed.

Finally, the court ruled that admission of the taped statement was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that this statement was cumulative to,

and consistent with, the two admissible statements, and the evidence otherwise

strongly indicated defendant’s guilt.

We granted defendant’s petition for review, which raised only the post-

Crawford confrontation clause issues. Briefing in this court has proceeded

exclusively on those issues.5 On the other hand, the People have made no

argument, either in the Court of Appeal or in this court, that John’s tape-recorded

statement at the police station was admissible under Crawford. We therefore

confine our discussion to whether his hospital statements, or either of them, fall

within Crawford’s restrictions on confrontation clause admissibility.

As will appear, we agree with the Court of Appeal that the statement to Dr.

Russell was admissible under Crawford, but we conclude, contrary to the Court of

Appeal, that the hospital statement to Deputy Mullin was not. We nonetheless

determine that the error in admitting the two police statements was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt.






5

Of course, in any Crawford analysis, the first question for the trial court is

whether proffered hearsay would fall under a recognized state law hearsay
exception. If it does not, the matter is resolved, and no further Crawford analysis
is required. Here, the parties do not dispute the statements were otherwise
admissible under the state hearsay law, and we do not reach that question.

9



DISCUSSION

In Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 56, the court held that the hearsay statement of

a declarant not present for cross-examination at trial was admissible under the

confrontation clause only if (1) the declarant was truly unavailable to testify and

(2) the statement bore adequate indicia of reliability. Under this test, “reliability

[could] be inferred without more in a case where the evidence [fell] within a

firmly rooted hearsay exception. In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at

least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” (Roberts,

supra, at p. 66, fn. omitted.)

In Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, the court had occasion to reevaluate how

the admissibility of hearsay evidence must be determined under the confrontation

clause.6 In that case, petitioner Crawford and his wife Sylvia went looking for the

victim, Lee, to confront Lee about an alleged attempt to rape Sylvia. During an

ensuing argument at Lee’s apartment, Crawford stabbed Lee in the chest.

Crawford told the police he reacted when he thought he saw Lee reach for a

weapon. Sylvia’s tape-recorded police statement largely corroborated Crawford’s

account of the events that led to the assault, but, as to the critical sequence of

events at the moment Lee was stabbed, Sylvia’s version undermined Crawford’s

somewhat. Sylvia indicated that, at that moment, Lee had assumed an open-armed

position, with his hands empty.


6

Crawford made clear that there are no confrontation clause restrictions on

the introduction of out-of-court statements for nonhearsay purposes. As Crawford
confirmed, “[t]he [Confrontation] Clause does not bar the use of [out-of-court]
statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.”
(Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 60, fn. 9, citing Tennessee v. Street (1985)
471 U.S. 409, 414.)

10



Charged with assault and attempted murder, Crawford claimed self-

defense. The marital privilege rendered Sylvia unavailable to testify.

Nonetheless, the prosecution sought to introduce her police statement to

countermand Crawford’s self-defense claim. The prosecution claimed that,

because she admitted she led Crawford to Lee’s apartment and thus facilitated the

assault, the statement was admissible under the state hearsay exception for

declarations against penal interest. Crawford claimed that, state law

notwithstanding, his federal confrontation rights would be violated by the

introduction of Sylvia’s statement without an opportunity for cross-examination.

Applying Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 56, the trial court admitted the statement,

reasoning that it exhibited “ ‘particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ”

(Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 40.)

Crawford was convicted of assault. The Washington Court of Appeals

reversed, concluding, under a nine-factor test, that Sylvia’s statement was not

sufficiently trustworthy to satisfy the confrontation clause. The Washington

Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, finding that, while Sylvia’s statement did

not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, the balance weighed in favor of

its reliability for confrontation clause purposes. The court reasoned that the two

statements—Crawford’s and Sylvia’s—were sufficiently similar as to “ ‘overlap’ ”

and “ ‘interlock,’ ” thus establishing the likely trustworthiness of Sylvia’s account.

(Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 41.) On certiorari, the United States Supreme

Court reversed.

The Sixth Amendment, the court noted, guarantees a criminal accused’s

right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” (U.S. Const., amend. VI,

cl. 4, italics added.) But this language, the court noted, is not self-explanatory;

“witnesses against” could mean only those witnesses who testified at trial, all

those whose statements are offered at trial, or “something in-between.”

11



(Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, 43.) Hence, said the court, a historical analysis

was necessary to ascertain the common understanding of the scope of the right to

confront witnesses at the time the Amendment was adopted and ratified.

As the court recounted, English common law had long differed from

European civil law practices as to the means by which witnesses gave testimony in

criminal trials. The civil law form involved ex parte examinations by judges and

prosecutors, while the common law tradition favored live testimony in court,

subject to adversarial testing. But in the 1550’s, during Queen Mary’s reign,

Parliament enacted statutes authorizing ex parte pretrial examinations by judicial

and prosecutorial officers. Statements obtained in such examinations became

available as criminal evidence in some cases.

The most notorious early abuse of ex parte evidence was the 1603 treason

trial of Sir Walter Raleigh. Raleigh was condemned on the basis of statements

made by his alleged accomplice, Lord Cobham, during an ex parte examination by

the Privy Council, and in a letter. Despite Raleigh’s protests that he was being

tried “ ‘by the Spanish Inquisition’ ” and contrary to “ ‘[t]he Proof of the Common

Law’ ” (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, 44), his demands to examine Cobham in

person were denied.

The Raleigh case and others thereafter spurred steady reform of English

jurisprudence on the issue of confrontation. By 1791, the Marian statutes

notwithstanding, it was understood that in all criminal cases, evidence obtained by

ex parte examination was not admissible against the accused if the witness was

available at trial, or in derogation of the accused’s right to cross-examine.

In the Colonies as well, protests were raised against laws and practices

admitting, in criminal cases, evidence obtained in the civil law manner by ex parte

examination without an opportunity for cross-examination. Many declarations of

rights adopted around the time of the Revolution included an express right of

12



confrontation. The absence of such a provision in the original Constitution

produced calls for the inclusion of a specific guarantee that evidence in criminal

cases be by cross-examination of live witnesses before triers of fact. The First

Congress responded by including the confrontation clause in the proposal that

became the Sixth Amendment. (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at pp. 43-50.)

From this history, the Crawford court drew two inferences. First, it noted,

the confrontation clause was principally directed against the civil law mode of

criminal procedure, in particular its system of ex parte examinations as evidence

against the accused. Thus, on the one hand, the clause did not simply preserve

cross-examination rights against witnesses who actually testified at trial, while

leaving hearsay statements entirely to the changing laws of evidence. On the other

hand, the clause was not concerned with all hearsay statements, or even all those

that might be considered good candidates for exclusion, on common sense

grounds, as unreliable.

Instead, the court reasoned, the clause’s express reference to “witnesses”

reflects its focus on those who “ ‘bear testimony,’ ” which typically is “ ‘[a]

solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving

some fact.’ ” (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, 51, quoting Webster, An American

Dictionary of the English Language (1828).) “An accuser who makes a formal

statement to government officers,” said the court, “bears testimony in a sense that

a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.” (541 U.S. at p.

51.) Thus, the court explained, the constitutional text reflects an “especially acute

concern with a specific type of out-of-court statement.” (Ibid.)

The court noted that various formulations of this core class of testimonial

statements had been suggested. One included formalized ex parte in-court

testimony or its “functional equivalent[s]”—i.e., material such as affidavits,

custodial examinations, confessions, depositions, prior testimony that the

13



defendant was unable to cross-examine, “ ‘or similar pretrial statements that

declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially.’ ” (Crawford,

supra, 541 U.S. 36, 51-52.) Another included “ ‘statements that were made under

circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that

the statement would be available for use at a later trial.’ ” (Id. at p. 52.)

“[A]t a minimum,” said the court, “testimonial,” for purposes of the

confrontation clause, “applies . . . to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing,

before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations.” (Crawford,

supra, 541 U.S. 36, 68.) The court explained that, for purposes of the case at

hand, it was using the term “interrogation” in its colloquial, rather than any

technical or legal sense, and did not need to ascribe a precise meaning, because

“Sylvia’s recorded statement, knowingly given in response to structured police

questioning, qualifie[d] under any conceivable definition.” (Crawford, supra, at

p. 53, fn. 4.)

The second clear inference from the court’s historical analysis, it said, is

that “the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a

witness who did not appear at trial unless [the witness] was unavailable to testify,

and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” (Crawford,

supra, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54.)7 This requirement, the court concluded, is not merely


7

Read in isolation, some language in the court’s opinion could be interpreted

to suggest, paradoxically, that a witness’s absence from the trial, as a result of true
unavailability, and a prior opportunity for cross-examination, are prerequisites to
admissibility of the witness’s hearsay statements. But the opinion actually makes
clear that “when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the
Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial
statements,” and that “[t]he Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long
as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” (Crawford, supra,
541 U.S. 36, 59, fn. 9.) We have construed Crawford accordingly. (People v.

(Footnote continued on next page.)

14



“sufficient,” but “necessary” and “dispositive.” (Id. at p. 55.) “Where testimonial

statements are involved,” said the court, “we do not think the Framers meant to

leave the Sixth Amendment’s protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence,

much less to amorphous notions of ‘reliability.’ ” (Id. at p. 61.) Hence, an

opportunity for cross-examination cannot be excused by case-specific judicial

determinations—subject to dispute and inconsistent application—that particular

testimonial hearsay is sufficiently trustworthy or reliable. (Id. at pp. 60-68.) In

the case at hand, the court explained, Sylvia’s testimonial statement to the police

was admitted for its truth against Crawford even though he had no opportunity to

cross-examine her. This was improper, said the court, because the statement

lacked “the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional

demands[,] [i.e.,] the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.”

(Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, 69.) Accordingly, the court reversed the

Washington Supreme Court’s judgment upholding Crawford’s conviction and

remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. (Ibid.)8



(Footnote continued from previous page.)

Lewis and Oliver
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1028, fn. 19; People v. Morrison (2004)
34 Cal.4th 698, 720.)

8

In reversing the state court judgment on grounds that the admission against

Crawford of Sylvia’s police statement violated the confrontation clause, the
United States Supreme Court did not independently determine whether Crawford
had suffered prejudice as a result of the improper evidence. We do not interpret
this omission as a signal that the admission of testimonial hearsay without an
opportunity for cross-examination is reversible per se. (See Arizona v. Fulminante
(1991) 499 U.S. 279, 306-312 [erroneous admission of evidence is mere “trial
error,” not amounting to a “structural defect[ ] in the constitution of the trial
mechanism,” and is thus subject to evaluation for harmlessness].) We presume
that, in subsequent proceedings in Crawford’s case, lower courts remained free to

(Footnote continued on next page.)

15



The Crawford majority did not foreclose the possibility that statements

made outside the context of police investigation or interrogation could be

testimonial. Moreover, the majority conceded that its “refusal to articulate a

comprehensive definition [of testimonial hearsay] in this case will cause interim

uncertainty.” (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, 68, fn. 10.)

The predicted uncertainty has arisen, in numerous post-Crawford state and

federal cases involving a myriad of hearsay statements made in various

circumstances by persons unavailable for trial. We briefly discuss below the

divergent results reached, in the post-Crawford era, as to whether, and when,

hearsay statements to treating physicians are testimonial. But we think all the

issues in the instant case are resolved by a careful examination of the high court’s

own more recent effort to clarify what it means by testimonial hearsay. The

decision in point is Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266].9

Davis consolidated and decided two different state cases concerning

responses to out-of-court questions by law enforcement officials. In Davis v.

Washington, No. 05-5224, a citizen, Michelle McCottry, called 911. In the tape-

recorded call, the 911 operator asked, “ ‘What’s going on,’ ” and McCottry

replied, “ ‘He’s here jumpin’ on me again.’ ” Questioned further, McCottry

indicated that “ ‘he’ ” had no weapons but was using his fists, and had not been



(Footnote continued from previous page.)

determine, by appropriate standards, whether the admission of Sylvia’s statement
was prejudicial or harmless.

9

Davis was decided while the instant matter was pending here on review.

The parties had already submitted their briefs on the merits in this court. We
therefore solicited, and received, supplemental briefs addressing the significance
of Davis to the issues before us.

16



drinking. After admonishing McCottry that “ ‘I’ve got help started,’ ” and to stay

on the line, the operator asked the assailant’s last and first name, and middle

initial, learning that he was petitioner Adrian Martell Davis. At that point

McCottry reported that

“ ‘[h]e’s runnin’ now.’ ” (Davis, supra, __U.S.__, __ [126 S.Ct. 2226, 2271].)

McCottry indicated further that Davis had “ ‘just run out the door’ ” and

was entering a car with someone else. When McCottry continued to talk, the

operator cut her off, saying, “ ‘Stop talking and answer my questions.’ ” The

operator then gathered more information, including Davis’s birthday, his purpose

in coming to McCottry’s house (to “ ‘get his stuff’ ” because McCottry was

moving), and the context of the assault. Within four minutes after the 911 call

began, the police arrived. They “observed McCottry’s shaken state, the ‘fresh

injuries on her forearm and her face,’ and her ‘frantic efforts to gather her

belongings and her children so that they could leave the residence.’ ” (Davis,

supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2271].)

Davis was charged with violating a domestic no-contact order. McCottry

did not appear at trial. The responding police officers testified to the injuries they

observed. Over Davis’s objection on confrontation clause grounds, the court

admitted, for their truth, McCottry’s statements on the 911 tape. The jury

convicted Davis. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington

Supreme Court agreed, holding that the portion of the call in which McCottry

identified Davis was not testimonial, and that if any portions of the call were

testimonial, their admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Davis,

supra, __U.S.__ [126 S.Ct. 2266].)

In Hammon v. Indiana, No. 05-5705, police responded to a late-night report

of a domestic disturbance. When they arrived, Amy Hammon was alone on the

front porch, appearing somewhat frightened, but she told them that “ ‘nothing was

17



the matter.’ ” (Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2272].) She

permitted the police to enter the house. There they saw a gas heating unit in the

corner of the living room, with flames shooting out the front because the glass on

the front of the unit was broken. Herschel Hammon (Herschel), Amy’s husband,

was in the kitchen. He told police there had been an argument, but it had never

become physical and was over. One officer sat down with Amy in the living room

and “ ‘again asked [her] what had occurred.’ ” (Ibid.) Herschel tried several times

to join the conversation, and became angry when the officer “ ‘insisted that [he]

stay separated from [Amy] so that we [could] investigate what happened.’ ”

(Ibid.) After hearing Amy’s account, the officer had her fill out and sign a “

‘battery affidavit.’ ” She handwrote that Herschel broke the furnace, shoved her

down onto the broken glass, hit her in the chest, broke lamps and a telephone, tore

up her van so she couldn’t leave, and attacked her daughter.

Herschel was charged with domestic battery and violating probation. At

his bench trial, Amy was subpoenaed but did not testify. The officer who had

questioned her was called to recount what she had told him, and to authenticate

her affidavit. Defense counsel repeatedly raised confrontation clause objections.

The trial court admitted Amy’s affidavit as a “ ‘present sense impression’ ” and

her statements as “ ‘excited utterances.’ ” The officer then recited that Amy had

told him the argument started over the couple’s daughter going over to a

boyfriend’s house. According to Amy, the officer continued, Herschel broke the

telephone, a lamp, and the glass on the front of the heater. He then threw Amy

down, shoved her head into the broken glass, and punched her twice in the chest.

(Davis, supra, __U.S.__ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2272-2273].)

The court found Herschel guilty on both charges. The Indiana Court of

Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court both affirmed. The latter court reasoned

that Amy’s oral statement was not testimonial because it was not “ ‘given or

18



taken’ ” with an eye to future use in legal proceedings, “ ‘where’ the motivations

of the questioner and declarant are the central concerns.’ ” (Davis, supra,

___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2273].) The Indiana high court conceded the

affidavit was testimonial, but deemed its admission harmless beyond a reasonable

doubt.

Assessing the cases under Crawford, the United States Supreme Court

affirmed Davis’s conviction, but reversed Herschel’s. In parsing the two

situations, the court first clarified a point it had left open in Crawford, now

confirming that the confrontation clause is concerned solely with hearsay

statements that are testimonial (Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___ [126 S.Ct.

2266, 2274-2276]), i.e., those by which “ ‘witnesses’ ”—the word used in the

Constitution—make “ ‘ “solemn declaration[s] or affirmation[s] . . . for the

purpose of proving some fact.” ’ ” (Id. at p. ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2274].) As the

court noted, “[a] limitation so clearly reflected in the text of the constitutional

provision must fairly be said to mark out not merely its ‘core,’ but its perimeter.”

(Ibid.)10

On the other hand, the court cautioned, testimonial hearsay is not restricted

to the most formal sort of sworn statements, such as affidavits and depositions.


10

Thus, the court has made clear that Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 56, and its

progeny are overruled for all purposes, and retain no relevance to a determination
whether a particular hearsay statement is admissible under the confrontation
clause. As the court indicated in Davis, “[i]t is the testimonial character of the
statement that separates it from other hearsay that, while subject to traditional
limitations upon hearsay evidence, is not subject to the Confrontation Clause.”
(Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2273], italics added.) Thus,
there is no basis for an inference that, even if a hearsay statement is
nontestimonial, it must nonetheless undergo a Roberts analysis before it may be
admitted under the Constitution.

19



“[W]e do not think it conceivable,” the court observed, “that the protections of the

Confrontation Clause can readily be evaded by having a note-taking policeman

recite the unsworn hearsay testimony of the declarant, instead of having the

declarant sign a deposition.” (Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266,

2276].) “ . . .The solemnity of even an oral declaration of relevant past fact to an

investigating officer is well enough established by the severe consequences that

can attend a deliberate falsehood. [Citations.] . . .” (Ibid., parentheses omitted.)

The court succinctly distinguished testimonial from nontestimonial

statements as necessary to decide the matters before it. “Statements are

nontestimonial,” the court said, “when made in the course of police interrogation

under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the

interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They

are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such

ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to

establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.”

(Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___-___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2273-2274].)11

Applying this standard first to Davis’s case, the court held that McCottry’s

responses to the 911 operator’s questions while Davis was still in her house were

nontestimonial. Objectively considered under all the circumstances, the court


11

The court noted, as it had similarly implied in Crawford, that “[o]ur

holding refers to interrogations because . . . the statements in the cases presently
before us are the products of interrogations—which in some circumstances tend to
generate testimonial responses.” (Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___, fn. 1
[126 S.Ct. 2266, 2274].) Though the court did not explain exactly what it meant
by “interrog-ations” in this context, the term seems to refer, in the court’s mind, to
“structured questioning” (see Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, 53, fn. 4) by law
enforcement officials, calling for considered factual responses by the person being
questioned.

20



concluded, these questions and answers were intended primarily to deal with an

ongoing emergency, not to establish or prove past facts for criminal use.

The court identified four factors that indicated McCottry was not testifying

during the 911 call, as follows: First, a 911 call, and at least the initial questioning

by the operator, are not primarily designed to prove some past fact, but to elicit

current circumstances requiring police assistance. Second, though one might call

911 to relate a danger already past, McCottry clearly was seeking help against a

bona fide, ongoing physical threat. Third, the conversation between McCottry and

the 911 operator, viewed objectively, was focused on facilitating resolution of the

current emergency, rather than establishing what had happened in the past.12

Finally, the level of formality between McCottry’s 911 interview and the

testimonial police station interrogation in Crawford was striking. “Crawford was

responding calmly, at the station house, to a series of questions, with the officer-

interrogator taping and making notes of her answers; McCottry’s frantic answers

were provided over the phone, in an environment that was not tranquil, or even (as

far as any reasonable 911 operator could make out) safe.” (Davis, supra, ___ U.S.

___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2277].)

It was much easier, the court said, to resolve the testimonial nature of the

police interview with Amy Hammon. Amy’s statements to the questioning

officer, the court observed, “were not much different from the statements we

found to be testimonial in Crawford. It is entirely clear from the circumstances

that the interrogation [of Amy] was part of an investigation into possibly criminal


12 In an aside, the court explained this was true “even of the operator’s effort
to establish the identity of the assailant, so that the dispatched officers might know
whether they would be encountering a violent felon. [Citations.]” (Davis, supra,
___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2276].)

21



past conduct—as, indeed, the testifying officer expressly acknowledged.” (Davis,

supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2278].) When the officer arrived, he

saw no evidence of an altercation still in progress. Amy told him everything was

fine, and that she faced no immediate threat. When he interviewed her a second

time, in the living room, “he was not seeking to determine (as in [Davis’s case])

‘what is happening,’ but rather ‘what happened.’ Objectively viewed, the primary,

if not indeed the sole, purpose of the interrogation was to investigate a possible

crime . . . .” (Ibid.)

Though the Crawford interview was more formal, the court conceded, none

of the features that made it so (station house setting, Miranda warning, audio

recording) was essential to its testimonial nature. In Herschel Hammon’s case,

“[i]t was formal enough that Amy’s interrogation was conducted in a separate

room, away from her husband . . . , with the officer receiving her replies for use in

his ‘investigation.’ . . . Both declarants were actively separated from the

defendant. . . . Both statements deliberately recounted, in response to police

questioning, how potentially criminal past events began and progressed. And both

took place some time after the events described were over. Such statements under

official interrogation are an obvious substitute for live testimony, because they do

precisely what a witness does on direct examination; they are inherently

testimonial.” (Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2278], fn.

omitted.)

We derive several basic principles from Davis. First, as noted above, the

confrontation clause is concerned solely with hearsay statements that are

testimonial, in that they are out-of-court analogs, in purpose and form, of the

testimony given by witnesses at trial. Second, though a statement need not be

sworn under oath to be testimonial, it must have occurred under circumstances that

imparted, to some degree, the formality and solemnity characteristic of

22



testimony.13 Third, the statement must have been given and taken primarily for

the purpose ascribed to testimony—to establish or prove some past fact for

possible use in a criminal trial. Fourth, the primary purpose for which a statement

was given and taken is to be determined “objectively,” considering all the

circumstances that might reasonably bear on the intent of the participants in the

conversation.14 Fifth, sufficient formality and solemnity are present when, in a

nonemergency situation, one responds to questioning by law enforcement


13

Responding to the dissent’s charge that the Davis majority was carrying its

concept of testimonial hearsay beyond the abuses targeted by the confrontation
clause, i.e., the depositions taken by Marian magistrates, the majority declared,
“[w]e do not dispute that formality is indeed essential to testimonial utterance,”
though the necessary formality does not arise only from those specific practices,
long superseded, that had been authorized by the Marian statutes. (Davis, supra,
___ U.S. ___, ___, fn. 5 [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2278].)

14

One possible formulation of testimonial hearsay that was mentioned, but

not expressly endorsed, by the Crawford court extended to all “ ‘statements . . .
made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to
believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.’ ” (Crawford,
supra, 541 U.S. 36, 52, italics added.) A broad interpretation of this formulation,
as adopted by a number of post-Crawford decisions, could apply to virtually every
out-of-court statement purporting to describe the circumstances of a crime or to
identify its perpetrator, insofar as a reasonable person could conceive that the
statement might later become criminal evidence. At oral argument, defendant’s
counsel came close to espousing such a view. Of course, Crawford itself
suggested that the concept of testimonial statements does not go so far, noting that
testimony is defined as a “ ‘solemn’ ” declaration made “ ‘for the purpose of
establishing or proving some fact,’ ” and that “[a]n accuser who makes a formal
statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who
makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.” (Id. at p. 51, italics added.)
Davis now confirms that the proper focus is not on the mere reasonable chance
that an out-of-court statement might later be used in a criminal trial. Instead, we
are concerned with statements, made with some formality, which, viewed
objectively,
are for the primary purpose of establishing or proving facts for
possible use in a criminal trial.

23



officials, where deliberate falsehoods might be criminal offenses. Sixth,

statements elicited by law enforcement officials are not testimonial if the primary

purpose in giving and receiving them is to deal with a contemporaneous

emergency, rather than to produce evidence about past events for possible use at a

criminal trial.

Under these principles, it seems manifest that John’s response to Deputy

Mullin’s question in the hospital waiting room was testimonial. Mullin had

previously been dispatched to the home shared by defendant and John on reports

of a domestic disturbance. There Mullin had seen drops of blood, a coffee table

missing its glass top, and broken glass that defendant was cleaning up. Defendant

had cuts on her hand. An hour later, Mullin was called to a different location, a

mile or two away, where a young man was sitting on the curb, his face slashed.

There Mullin learned that the injured youth was defendant’s son.

When Mullin arrived at this scene, emergency medical personnel were

already attending to John. An ambulance took him to the hospital. Mullin did not

assist in this procedure, but simply came to the hospital at a later time. Then,

while John was awaiting treatment in the emergency room, Mullin asked John to

describe “what [had] happened between [him] and the defendant.” (Italics added.)

Thus, by the time Mullin spoke with John in the hospital, the incident that

caused John’s injury had been over for more than an hour. The alleged assailant

and the alleged victim were geographically separated, John had left the scene of

the injury, and he thereafter had been taken to a remote location to receive medical

treatment. Though he apparently had not yet been treated by a doctor when

Mullin questioned him, he was in no danger of further violence as to which

contemporaneous police intervention might be required.

Of course, John remained in need of prompt acute care by a physician for

his injury. To that extent, there remained an ongoing emergency. Thus, if the

24



primary purpose of the hospital conversation between Mullin and John, viewed

objectively, had been to facilitate such emergency treatment, the statements

thereby elicited might well not have the character of testimony.

However, there is no evidence the interview was so intended. Mullin had

not previously been involved in John’s emergency treatment. His role throughout

had been as an investigating police officer. He arrived at the hospital only after

John was already in medical hands. Mullin’s clear purpose in coming to speak

with John at this juncture was not to deal with a present emergency, but to obtain a

fresh account of past events involving defendant as part of an inquiry into possible

criminal activity. Indeed, the form of Mullin’s question assumed that defendant

might be the perpetrator of John’s injury.15


15

The People urge that Mullin’s question was not an attempt to investigate a

crime, for he did not yet know one had occurred, but merely an effort to “ ‘assess
the situation’ ” (Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2279]) to
determine whether further immediate police action might be necessary to
apprehend a perpetrator, to ensure the safety of the apprehending officers, and to
safeguard the other minors in defendant’s home. While “[s]uch exigencies may
often mean that ‘initial inquiries’ produce nontestimonial statements” (ibid.), the
record does not support the People’s characterization here. Mullin had already
visited defendant’s residence on reports of a domestic disturbance, so he had
reason to suspect John’s injury was related to that incident. Yet, though it appears
John was conscious and coherent when Mullin first encountered him sitting on the
curb, there is no indication Mullin tried to obtain emergency information from
John at that time. Mullin testified he did not go with John in the ambulance and
simply proceeded to the hospital “at a later point.” Once there, Mullin did not ask
an open-ended question designed to elicit emergency information. Instead, on the
basis of a suspicion derived from what he already knew, he posed a focused,
accusatory, and investigatory inquiry; he asked what had happened “between
[John] and the defendant.” (Italics added.) Mullin did not testify that he was
motivated by concern about an ongoing situation that might require further
immediate police intervention, and, though he later returned to defendant’s
residence for investigatory purposes, there is no indication he followed up what
John told him by initiating such emergency action. Under these circumstances,

(Footnote continued on next page.)

25



The circumstances of this interview, in a hospital emergency room, were

relatively informal, but they were no less formal or structured than the residential

interview of Amy Hammon in Davis.16 Here, as there, the requisite solemnity was

imparted by the potentially criminal consequences of lying to a peace officer.17 In

fact, we perceive no material difference, for purposes of the confrontation clause,

between the two interviews. We therefore must conclude that the admission of

John’s hospital statement to Mullin, without an opportunity for cross-examination

by defendant, was a violation of the Sixth Amendment as construed in Crawford

and Davis.

We reach a different conclusion, however, with respect to John’s hospital

statement to Dr. Russell. As indicated above, when John was seen by Dr. Russell,



(Footnote continued from previous page.)

there is no basis for an “objective[ ]” conclusion that the “primary purpose” of
John’s statement, as given and taken, was to help the police deal with an ongoing
situation, rather than to establish or prove past facts for potential future use in a
criminal trial.

16

Nor was Mullin’s interview with John insufficiently “structured” to

constitute an “interrogation,” to the extent this is relevant. Mullin’s testimony
mentioned only a single question, but that question called for, and elicited, a
considered and detailed narrative response. Similarly in Davis, an officer “asked
[Amy Hammon] what had occurred” and “[heard] [her] account.” (Davis, supra,
___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2272].) Though this officer also had Amy fill
out and sign a “battery affidavit,” the high court did not deem this additional
procedure crucial to a determination that Amy’s oral statement to the officer was
testimonial. Indeed, the Davis court noted that “[t]he Framers were no more
willing to exempt from cross-examination . . . answers to open-ended questions
than they were to exempt answers to detailed interrogation.” (Id. at p. ___, fn. 1
[126 S.Ct. 2266, 2274].)

17

Section 148.5, subdivision (a), makes it a misdemeanor to report to a sworn

peace officer, including a deputy sheriff, that a felony or misdemeanor has been
committed, knowing the report to be false.

26



he needed immediate acute treatment for a five- or six-inch laceration on the side

of his face and neck. As Dr. Russell explained, his sole object in asking John

“what happened” was to determine, in accordance with his standard medical

procedure, the exact nature of the wound, and thus the correct mode of treatment.

The question was neutral in form, and though John responded by identifying

defendant as his assailant, Dr. Russell did not pursue that avenue further.

Objectively viewed, the primary purpose of the question, and the answer, was not

to establish or prove past facts for possible criminal use, but to help Dr. Russell

deal with the immediate medical situation he faced. It was thus akin to the 911

operator’s emergency questioning of Michelle McCottry in Davis.

Moreover, the context of the conversation had none of the formality or

solemnity that characterizes testimony by witnesses. In speaking with Dr. Russell,

John did not confront structured questioning by law enforcement authorities.

There is no evidence that Dr. Russell was acting in conjunction with law

enforcement, or that his question about the cause of John’s injury had any

evidence-gathering aim. So far as the record discloses, Dr. Russell made no effort

to record or memorialize John’s statements for later legal use. John faced no

criminal sanction for any false statements he might make. The question and

answer occurred in a private conversation between a patient and his doctor, by

which both presumably sought only to ensure John’s proper treatment.18


18

Indeed, the substance of the conversation between John, as patient, and Dr.

Russell, as physician, would normally be confidential and privileged, subject only
to the patient’s waiver. (Evid. Code, §§ 990-994.) However, the physician-
patient privilege does not apply in a criminal proceeding. (Id., § 998.) While Dr.
Russell indicated he was present for “at least part” of Deputy Mullin’s hospital
interview with John, there is no evidence Mullin was present during Dr. Russell’s
actual medical consultation with John. There is no merit to defense counsel’s
suggestion at oral argument that because Dr. Russell may have overheard part of

(Footnote continued on next page.)

27



As defendant points out, Davis concerned only whether “interrogations” by

law enforcement officials had produced testimonial statements. But the court

made clear that even statements to law enforcement officials as the result of

“interrogations” are not testimonial if given and taken for nonevidentiary purposes

such as the need to cope with ongoing emergencies. (Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___,

___ fn. 1 [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2273].) That being so, we cannot imagine that an

informal statement to a person not affiliated with law enforcement, such as a

medical doctor, solely for the nonevidentiary purpose of diagnosis and treatment,

would be deemed testimonial. As we have indicated, the focus of both Crawford

and Davis is on formal and solemn accusatory statements made to law

enforcement agents in the context of criminal investigations or inquiries. An

utterance of this kind, the court has indicated, is a modern analog of the ex parte

statements obtained by magistrates under the Marian statutes. It renders the

declarant, in substance, a “witness” who, by making the statement, bears

testimony.

By contrast, John’s statement made solely for purposes of medical

treatment to a physician not affiliated with police or prosecutors has none of the

characteristics the court has found significant in its recent analyses. If a statement

made under “interrogation” to a law enforcement official is nontestimonial where

“the circumstances objectively indicate” that it was not “primar[ily] [for the



(Footnote continued from previous page.)

what John told Mullin, John’s later statement to Dr. Russell, made during the
doctor’s medical examination, was testimonial. At trial, Dr. Russell did not allude
to anything he heard John say to Mullin. And Dr. Russell’s incidental presence at
the earlier conversation between John and Mullin did not transform him into an
agent of law enforcement with a criminal investigatory purpose.

28



purpose of] establish[ing] or prov[ing] past events potentially relevant to later

criminal prosecution” (Davis, supra, ___ U.S. ___, ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266, 2273-

2274]), we cannot assume the court would apply a different, more stringent

standard to a noninterrogational statement made outside the context of law

enforcement. It seems clear the court would consider such a statement within

neither the “core” nor the “perimeter” of the concerns addressed by the

confrontation clause.

Defendant urges that statements to a physician by a minor victim of

parental abuse are necessarily testimonial because the doctor is, by statute, a

“mandated reporter” to law enforcement authorities of suspected child abuse. (See

§§ 11164 et seq., 11165.7, subd. (a)(21).) We conclude, however, that Dr.

Russell’s mere status as a mandated reporter did not render John’s statement to

him testimonial.

Significantly, the reporting statute does not oblige a doctor to investigate or

ascertain, for purposes of possible criminal prosecution, whether a patient has

suffered such abuse. The physician’s sole duty is to make a report “whenever [he

or she] in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her

employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the [physician] knows or

reasonably suspects has been the victim” of abuse or neglect. (§ 11166, subd. (a),

italics added.)

The mere fact that doctors must report abuse they see, suspect, or know of

in the course of practice does not transform them into investigative agents of law

enforcement. Nor does it convert their medically motivated questions during the

examination of minor patients into investigatory interrogations that elicit

testimonial responses. Here, despite Dr. Russell’s incidental status as a mandatory

reporter of suspected abuse, “the circumstances objectively indicate” that the

“primary purpose” of his question, and John’s answer, was to pinpoint the nature

29



of a serious acute injury in order to provide immediate treatment, not to establish,

for potential criminal purposes, that John was abused.19

Defendant cites two pre-Davis California decisions to assert that hearsay

statements to persons other than law enforcement officials may be testimonial for

purposes of the confrontation clause. Neither alters our analysis of the instant

facts.

In People v. Pirwani (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 770, the Court of Appeal held

that out-of-court statements by a dependent adult, since deceased, to her social

worker should have been excluded. But the sole issue addressed was whether the

statements came within the state hearsay exception for spontaneous utterances

(Evid. Code, § 1240). (Pirwani, supra, at pp. 787-790.) The court expressed no

opinion whether admission of this statement violated Crawford.

In People v. Sisavath (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1396, a “forensic interview

specialist” from the Fresno County Multidisciplinary Interview Center (MDIC)

interviewed a four-year-old suspected sexual abuse victim. The interview took

place after the defendant had been charged and his preliminary hearing had been

completed. The prosecutor and a district attorney’s investigator were present at

the interview. When the victim was adjudged incompetent to testify, the

investigator was allowed to testify about the statement adduced in the interview.

The Court of Appeal found error, reasoning that, under these circumstances, “there

is no serious question” but that the victim’s statement was “ ‘ “made under


19

As defense counsel conceded at oral argument, defendant’s “mandated

reporter” argument would mean that certain statements by a 17-year-old patient
(see § 11165) to a treating physician are automatically testimonial, while an 18-
year-old patient’s identical statements, made under identical circumstances for
identical reasons, are not. We see no basis to reach such an illogical conclusion.

30



circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that

the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1402,

quoting Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, 52.)

As indicated above, in Davis the United States Supreme Court has since

refined the definition of testimonial statements. But the statement at issue in

Sisavath might well be considered testimonial even under the more recent

formulation. It was made in a formal setting, after criminal proceedings had

commenced. It was elicited by a trained interviewer, in the presence of law

enforcement personnel, with the manifest object of obtaining criminal evidence.

The MDIC agent was simply acting as a law enforcement interrogator in the

circumstances. Nothing in Sisavath suggests that the brief private conversation

between John F. and Dr. Russell, for the purpose of providing and receiving

medical treatment, produced a testimonial statement.20


20

Though their analyses have varied, most post-Crawford decisions in other

jurisdictions, both before and after Davis, have concluded that statements to
physicians for purposes of medical evaluation and treatment were not testimonial
where the doctors were not acting in cooperation with law enforcement to obtain
evidence for use in a possible criminal prosecution. (E.g., U.S. v. Peneaux
(8th Cir. 2005) 432 F.3d 882, 895-896; Miller v. Fleming (W.D.Wn. 2006)
2006 WL 435466, *5-*8 [pre-Davis case concluding, inter alia, that five-year-old
declarant would not reasonably contemplate trial use]; People v. Vigil
(Colo. 2006) 127 P.3d 916, 921-926 [pre-Davis case concluding, inter alia, that
seven-year-old declarant would not reasonably contemplate trial use of her
statements to medical “child protection team”]; Com. v. DeOliveira (Mass. 2006)
849 N.E.2d 218, 224-227 [pre-Davis case concluding that statements of six-year-
old declarant were not testimonial per se, as elicited by police interrogation, or
testimonial in fact, in that declarant would not reasonably anticipate trial use];
Foley v. State (Miss. 2005) 914 So.2d 677, 685 [five-year-old child’s statements
made as part of “neutral medical evaluation” were not testimonial]; State v.
Vaught
(Neb. 2004) 682 N.W.2d 284, 291 [four-year-old declarant’s statements
during medical exam for purposes of diagnosis and treatment, without
involvement of law enforcement, did not fit any Crawford formulation]; State v.

(Footnote continued on next page.)

31



Defendant points to a post-Davis decision, State v. Mechling (W.Va. 2006)

633 S.E.2d 311 (Mechling). There, a physical altercation between the defendant

and his girlfriend, Angela Thorn, was observed by Thorn’s neighbor, Alvarez.

Alvarez saw the defendant take a swing at Thorn, but could not tell if the blow

actually landed. When Alvarez approached to intervene, the defendant fled, and

Alvarez then spoke with Thorn. Thorn did not appear at the defendant’s trial on a

charge of domestic battery. Alvarez was permitted to testify that Thorn told him

the defendant “ ‘hit me in the head and I’ve got a knot on my head.’ ” According



(Footnote continued from previous page.)

Moses
(Wn.Ct.App. 2005) 119 P.3d 906, 911-912 [domestic abuse victim’s
statements to doctor during private exam were not testimonial; exam was for
purpose of diagnosis and treatment, physician was not connected to criminal
investigation, and record does not indicate declarant believed, or had reason to
believe, statements would be used at trial]; but see, e.g., People v. West
(Ill.App.Ct. 2005) 823 N.E.2d 82, 90 [adult rape victim’s statements to hospital
emergency medical personnel were testimonial insofar as they alleged criminal
conduct and identified a perpetrator]; compare, e.g., U.S. v. Bordeaux (8th Cir.
2005) 400 F.3d 548, 556 [child sex abuse victim’s statements to “forensic
interviewer” designated by law enforcement officers were testimonial, even if
doctor observed interview and one purpose was medical treatment]; In re T.T.
(Ill.App.Ct. 2004) 815 N.E.2d 789, 803-804 [child sex abuse victim’s accusatory
statements to examining physician who was member of hospital child abuse
protection unit and had testified as expert witness in child abuse cases were
testimonial]; State v. Snowden (Md. 2005) 867 A.2d 314, 322-330 [older child
abuse victim’s statements during formal interview by county “sexual abuse
investigator” in conjunction with police investigation were testimonial]; State v.
Blue
(N.D. 2006) 717 N.W.2d 558, 561-565 [post-Davis case; child sex abuse
victim’s statements to “forensic interviewer,” with police involvement, were for
purpose of collecting evidence, and were thus testimonial]; State v. Mack
(Or. 2004) 101 P.3d 349 [statements by three-year-old witness to department of
health services social worker who was interviewing witness under direction of
police in murder investigation were testimonial].)

32



to Alvarez, he then asked Ms. Thorn “ ‘if she was okay, and she said, yes, she

would be okay.’ ” (633 S.E.2d at p. 315.)

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the admission of

Thorn’s hearsay statement through Alvarez might have violated Crawford and

Davis. The Mechling court reasoned that the holdings in those two decisions

could be distilled to the following: First, a statement is testimonial, whether or not

given to agents of law enforcement, if made under circumstances that would lead

an objective witness reasonably to believe it would be available for use in a later

trial. Second, statements to law enforcement agents are not testimonial if made

under circumstances that objectively indicate the primary purpose was to enable

police to deal with an ongoing emergency, but are testimonial if no ongoing

emergency exists, and the circumstances objectively indicate the purpose was to

establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.

(Mechling, supra, 633 S.E.2d 311, 321.) Combining these concepts, the Mechling

court appeared to conclude that any statement about criminal events, made by a

witness thereto outside the context of an ongoing emergency, is testimonial. (Id.

at p. 324.)

Thus, the West Virginia court concluded, Thorn’s statements to Alvarez

would be nontestimonial if they occurred in the context of Alvarez’s attempts to

intervene in an emergency. However, they would be testimonial, and thus

excludable, if Thorn’s statements “related ‘what happened,’ and the circumstances

reflect a significant lapse of time before [they] were made to . . . Alvarez.”

(Mechling, supra, 633 S.E.2d 311, 324.) Finding the record on the issue deficient,

the court remanded for further factual findings.

For reasons we have already explained at length, we respectfully disagree

with the reasoning of Mechling. In our view, neither Crawford nor Davis made

testimonial, and thus inadmissible as hearsay, all statements, other than emergency

33



statements, that might reasonably be available for use in a criminal trial. To the

extent they describe criminal events, “casual remark[s] to an acquaintance,” such

as Thorn’s comments to Alvarez in Mechling, might be so used if otherwise

admissible. (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 51.) Yet Crawford itself strongly

signaled that such casual remarks, made without the “solemn[ity]” and “purpose”

characteristic of “testimony,” are not the concern of the confrontation clause.

(Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, 51.)21 And if Crawford left any doubt on the

subject, Davis laid it to rest. There, the court made clear that, where statements to

law enforcement officials are at issue, testimonial “solemn[ity]” and “purpose” are

essential. No more stringent rule should apply to statements made to persons who

are not law enforcement agents, and outside the context of a criminal

investigation.

We therefore conclude that John’s statement to Dr. Russell in the course of

the physician’s medical evaluation was not testimonial. Accordingly, admission

of this statement for its truth against defendant at her trial did not contravene the

confrontation clause, as construed in Crawford and Davis, even though she had no

opportunity to cross-examine John. On the other hand, as we have indicated,

John’s statements to Deputy Mullin at the hospital and police station were

testimonial. Thus, under the standards set forth in Crawford and Davis, they were

inadmissible for truth against defendant without an opportunity for cross-

examination. Because those standards apply retroactively to defendant’s case, we

must determine whether the admission of the latter statements at defendant’s trial

may have influenced the outcome, and thus rendered her trial unfair.


21

We ourselves concluded, after Crawford, that an accusatory statement by a

sexual abuse victim to a friend at school was not testimonial for purposes of the
confrontation clause. (People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 580, fn. 19.)

34



We are persuaded that admission of John’s statements to Deputy Mullin

was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Chapman v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 18.) The statement to Dr. Russell, made for purposes of medical

treatment, succinctly indicated what had caused John’s injury. He told Dr. Russell

that, while his grandmother held him, defendant had cut him. Dr. Russell reported

that John’s demeanor, as he answered Dr. Russell’s question, was quiet and

respectful, and that he seemed frightened.

Other evidence was substantially consistent with John’s claim. At the

outset, that evidence strongly indicated John had been injured by broken glass

during a domestic argument. Shortly before he encountered the injury victim,

Deputy Mullin had been dispatched to defendant’s home. Outside the house, he

saw a bloody towel and drops of blood. Inside, defendant was sweeping up

broken glass, and the top of a coffee table was obviously missing. Defendant had

cuts on her hand. From this evidence, and from the nature of John’s wound

itself—as described by Dr. Russell and depicted in several graphic photographs—

a fact finder would almost certainly infer that John had been cut by a large piece of

broken glass during an altercation in which defendant was involved.22

The parties did not dispute this inference, but sought to explain it in

different ways. Relying on John’s statements about the episode, which did not

vary on the point, the prosecution insisted defendant had assaulted John with a

shard of glass. The defense claimed he suffered an accidental injury when he fell


22

Thus, we are not persuaded by the dissent’s assertion that the inference of a

struggle arose only, or even primarily, from defense evidence, which, the dissent
speculates, might not have been presented had John’s statements to Deputy Mullin
been excluded.

35



among the glass fragments.23 The case thus turned on whether John’s wound was

intentionally inflicted or accidentally sustained.

In this regard, Dr. Russell testified that, for several reasons, the cut on

John’s face and neck was not consistent with an accident. The wound, Dr. Russell

noted, was “very clean,” “looked like it had been done with a knife,” and

contained no glass fragments or other ground-in debris. In an accident involving

broken glass, Dr. Russell said, he would expect more jagged lacerations, “more

ripping rather than cutting type wounds.”

Moreover, Dr. Russell observed, the deep, relatively straight five- or six-

inch gash across John’s face and neck was the only cut John had sustained; Dr.

Russell saw no other significant bruises or lacerations. Such an isolated injury

would be “rare[ ],” Dr. Russell indicated, for a person accidentally impacted by

fragments of shattered or shattering glass. Moreover, Dr. Russell reported, the cut

became deeper as it progressed from top to bottom. From this, the jury could

readily infer that a sharp object was dragged downward across John’s cheek and

jaw with increasing pressure, in an intentional gouging fashion, rather than coming

into incidental contact with his skin. Finally, as a vertical wound on the left side

of John’s face, the injury was naturally consistent with infliction by a right-handed

person, such as defendant, during a face-to-face confrontation with the victim.

Through her own purported eyewitnesses, defendant disputed that she had

assaulted John with a shard of glass. But the credibility of these witnesses was

manifestly suspect. Defendant’s son Jermaine said he did not see John’s

grandmother hold John and suggested John was cut accidentally during the fall.


23

Defendant did not claim she cut John intentionally but in self-defense, nor

was there any intimation that a third person slashed John.

36



But Jermaine was only seven years old when he testified, and only five years old

when he witnessed the struggle.

Defendant’s teenaged daughter Kathy also testified that she saw the

altercation. She said John had been living elsewhere, arrived unannounced,

started the physical confrontation, then ran away after the fall onto the coffee

table. Kathy denied that John was held by his grandmother, and denied that

defendant cut him either intentionally or accidentally. But Kathy’s credibility was

impeached by the testimony of social worker Fenton. Fenton said Kathy told her

that John was living with defendant, and that Kathy, who had been upstairs

watching television, arrived downstairs only after John had departed, did not see

any part of the fight, and relied on an account supplied by the grandmother.

Of course, John’s credibility in recounting the events that injured him was

not irrelevant. His account was the only direct evidence that defendant had

inflicted his wound, and had done so intentionally. Moreover, that John made this

accusation three separate times, and provided additional details to the police, may

have bolstered his credibility to some degree.

In the overall state of the evidence, however, John’s statements to Deputy

Mullin were largely cumulative. They were substantially consistent with his

statement to Dr. Russell, and nothing in the additional details they contained was

crucial to the charges. Furthermore, there was ample ground to believe John’s

statement to Dr. Russell on its own merits. In a hospital emergency room for

acute treatment of a serious injury, and visibly frightened, John had every reason

to answer the treating physician’s questions truthfully.24


24

The dissent speculates on various reasons why John might lie to the doctor,

including anger at defendant, his own guilty involvement as the aggressor in the
fight (though he suffered the only significant injury, and his sister’s claim he

(Footnote continued on next page.)

37



Under these circumstances, we conclude, omission the trial of the

statements to Deputy Mullin would not have altered the outcome. Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which upheld defendant’s

conviction.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.



(Footnote continued from previous page.)

attacked defendant was impeached), and his concern about an unrelated warrant
for his arrest (which was before the jury only because of his improperly admitted
tape-recorded police statement). The dissent also notes a pretrial comment by
defense counsel that John had been diagnosed as schizophrenic. However, as we
indicate in the text, the physical and circumstantial evidence supports John’s
statement to Dr. Russell, and the conditions under which it was made were
conducive to truth. Of course, the jury’s assessment of his credibility would not
have been affected under any circumstances by a mental health evaluation that was
not in evidence. Hence, the dissent fails to cast reasonable doubt on our
conclusion that the exclusion of John’s police statements would not have altered
the jury’s verdict.

38

















BAXTER, J.

WE CONCUR:


GEORGE, C.J.
WERDEGAR, J.
CHIN, J.
MORENO, J.
CORRIGAN, J.


39












DISSENTING OPINION BY KENNARD, J.




I join the majority in upholding the trial court’s admission of a statement

that the alleged victim, a minor, made to an emergency room physician treating his

injuries. I also agree that the trial court violated defendant’s rights under the

confrontation clause of the federal Constitution by admitting two statements that

the minor made to a sheriff’s deputy, describing the cause of the minor’s injuries.

I do not agree, however, that the erroneous admission of these two statements was

harmless.

I

While investigating a domestic disturbance at defendant’s home, Riverside

Deputy Sheriff Perry Mullin saw a bloody towel and drops of blood outside the

home; inside the home, he saw the top of a glass coffee table was missing and

defendant was picking up broken glass. After talking to defendant and other

family members, Deputy Mullin left. An hour later he was dispatched to an

intersection a mile from defendant’s home, where he found defendant’s 15-year-

old son, John F., who had not been present at the home during Mullin’s earlier

visit. John had a large cut running from his ear to his neck. Mullin saw to it that

John was taken to a hospital.

Later, Deputy Mullin talked to John in the hospital’s emergency room.

John said that during an argument with his mother (defendant), she pushed him,

causing him to fall on the glass coffee table and break it. John’s grandmother then

1



grabbed him; while she was holding him, defendant cut him with a shard of glass.

When defendant started to cut John a second time, he broke free and ran away.

When the emergency room physician, Dr. Paul Russell, asked John what

had happened, John replied he had been held down by his grandmother and cut by

his mother.

After John’s release from the hospital, Deputy Mullin questioned him at the

police station. In a tape-recorded statement, John described the assault in detail.

He said he had been living with defendant for four or five weeks. On the day of

the assault, defendant became upset when she saw John looking for a belt of his in

a closet where she kept personal items. He went to the garage to look for another

belt; when he returned, defendant accused him of messing up the garage. She then

pulled John by his shirt, tearing it, after which she pushed him onto the glass

coffee table, breaking it. John’s grandmother came downstairs and grabbed John

when he got up. Defendant picked up a piece of broken glass from the coffee

table and slashed John’s face; when defendant tried to slash John a second time, he

broke free and ran out the door.

At trial, John did not testify, but the prosecution introduced his two

statements to Deputy Mullin – the one made at the hospital and the one made at

the police station – as well as his statement to Dr. Russell at the hospital.

Dr. Russell testified that John’s wound could have been inflicted by glass or a

knife. He said he had treated many people with head injuries sustained by

colliding with and breaking a pane of glass. Those wounds were ordinarily “very

jagged,” with “lots of more ripping rather than cutting type wounds”; “rarely” did

he see “one isolated long cut . . . with no other injuries on a body,” as was the case

with John.

The defense called as a witness defendant’s seven-year-old son Jermaine,

who was five years old when the incident occurred. At the time, Jermaine

2



testified, John was living at the house. Defendant and John got in a fight and fell

onto the coffee table, breaking the glass. As John got up, a piece of glass that was

on the floor cut his neck.

The defense also called as a witness defendant’s 14-year-old daughter

Kathy, who was 12 years old at the time of the incident. She testified that when

John, who was not living at their home, came to the door, defendant told him to

leave, and the two then began pushing each other. John threatened to kill

defendant and pushed her onto the coffee table, breaking the glass, and John fell

on top of defendant. John then got up and ran out. John’s grandmother tried to

break up the fight, and defendant told Kathy to call 911. In rebuttal, the

prosecution impeached Kathy with her prior statement to a social worker that she

had not seen the fight and that John was living at the family home.

The jury convicted defendant of assault by means of force likely to inflict

great bodily injury.

II

I have no quarrel with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s

admission of John’s two statements to Deputy Mullin violated defendant’s right,

under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution, to confront the witnesses

against him. In Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 and in Davis v.

Washington (2006) ___ U.S. ___ [126 S.Ct. 2266], the United States Supreme

Court held that the confrontation clause bars admission of an out-of-court

“testimonial” statement for the truth of the matter asserted when the defendant has

no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant who made the statement. As the

majority explains, John’s two statements to Deputy Mullin came within the high

court’s definition of “testimonial” statements. Because admission of those

statements violated the federal Constitution, the error may be found harmless only

if, on appeal, the Attorney General demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that

3



the result would have been the same notwithstanding the error. (Chapman v.

California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.)

In characterizing the error as harmless, the majority reasons that John’s

statement at the hospital to Dr. Russell, which the trial court properly admitted,

“succinctly indicated what had caused John’s injury” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 34)

and that John’s two erroneously admitted statements to Deputy Mullin were

“largely cumulative” (id. at p. 36) of John’s brief statement to Dr. Russell. Not so.

Dr. Russell’s description of John’s account of the assault was quite pithy:

“he had been held down by his grandmother and cut by his mother,” a total of 13

words. By contrast, John’s tape-recorded statement to Deputy Mullin was quite

detailed, taking up more than two thousand words (12 pages of transcript). The

details in that statement may have been important to the jury. It seems rather

unusual that a 15-year-old boy would be held down by his grandmother while

being cut with broken glass by his mother. Absent some explanation of how that

could have happened, the jury might well have thought that John concocted the

story. The circumstance that the statement to Deputy Mullin was recorded could

also have been significant, because the jury, after listening to John’s voice, may

have concluded that he sounded credible, a determination the jury could not have

made from Dr. Russell’s description of what John had told him. Finally, the jury

may have given John’s story greater credence because it learned that he gave

roughly the same account on three different occasions: once to Dr. Russell, once

to Deputy Mullin in the hospital’s emergency room, and once at the police station.

Thus, contrary to the majority, John’s statements to Deputy Mullin were not

“largely cumulative” of his statement to Dr. Russell. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 36.)

According to the majority, the “evidence strongly indicated John had been

injured by broken glass during a domestic argument.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 34.)

There was little evidence, however, of such a fight in the prosecution’s case apart

4



from John’s two separate statements to Deputy Mullin, which the majority

concedes were inadmissible. True, the defense presented evidence – through the

testimony of John’s brother and sister – that John had argued and struggled with

his mother, and that they fell onto the coffee table and broke the glass top. But

that evidence might never have been presented if the trial court had not permitted

the prosecution to introduce John’s two statements to Deputy Mullin: The defense

might simply have rested without calling any witnesses and argued that John’s

brief out-of-court statement to Dr. Russell was insufficient to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that defendant had assaulted him.

The majority states: “In a hospital room for acute treatment of a serious

injury, and visibly frightened, John had every reason to answer the treating

physician’s questions truthfully.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 37, italics added.)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. As John acknowledged in his recorded statement to Deputy

Mullin, he knew that there was a warrant for his arrest on an unrelated matter, and

that he would be taken to juvenile hall. John also knew that Deputy Mullin had

come to the hospital to investigate the circumstances of his injury, and it is

reasonable to infer that John expected Dr. Russell to pass on to Deputy Mullin

anything John would say about the cause of the injury. Thus, if John was the

initial aggressor in his encounter with defendant, he might have had reason to give

Dr. Russell an inaccurate account of the incident because of fear of prosecution if

he told the truth. Moreover, John had reason to be angry at defendant because, by

his own account, she had berated him and had torn his shirt before the injury

occurred. His anger at his mother could have prompted him to falsely blame her

for his injury. Furthermore, during pretrial discussions pertaining to the

admissibility of John’s statements to Dr. Russell and Deputy Mullin, defense

counsel commented that John had been diagnosed as schizophrenic. If so, John

may have suffered from a delusion that caused him to inaccurately describe the

5



manner in which he was injured. In short, because the defense had no chance to

cross-examine John, the veracity of his statement to Dr. Russell cannot be

ascertained.

It may well be that if the trial court had excluded John’s two separate

statements to Deputy Mullin describing defendant’s assault on him, the jury would

still have found defendant guilty. But the jury could also have acquitted

defendant. Because John’s two erroneously admitted statements to Deputy Mullin

were the most important evidence in the prosecution’s case against defendant, I

cannot say “beyond a reasonable doubt” (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S.

at p. 24) that, had they been excluded, the jury would nevertheless have convicted

her. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

KENNARD,

J.

6



See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion People v. Cage
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion

Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
XXX 120 Cal.App.4th 770
Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.
S127344
Date Filed: April 9, 2007
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:
Superior
County: Riverside
Judge: Robert J. McIntyre

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Jeanne Courtney Vanderhoff, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.



__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General,
Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General,
Michael T. Murphy and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

David Labahn and George Kennedy for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.









Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Jeanne Courtney Vanderhoff
2650 Jamacha Road, Suite 147-272
El Cajon, CA 92019
(619) 590-9293

Scott C. Taylor
Deputy Attorney General
110 West “A” Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 645-2605


Opinion Information
Date:Docket Number:
Tue, 04/10/2007S127344A

Parties
1Cage, Lisa Marie (Defendant and Appellant)
Represented by Jeanne Courtney Vanderhoff
Vanderhoff Law Group
701 "B" Street, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA

2The People (Plaintiff and Respondent)
Represented by Scott Charles Taylor
Office of the Attorney General
110 W. "A" Street, Suite 1100
13084 Cavalry Court
San Diego, CA

3California District Attorneys Association (Amicus curiae)
Represented by David Richard Labahn
California District Attorneys Association
731 "K" Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA


Disposition
Apr 9 2007Opinion: Affirmed

Dockets
Aug 24 2004Petition for review filed
  Appellant ( Cage) by counsel.
Aug 25 2004Record requested
 
Aug 30 2004Received Court of Appeal record
  One doghouse.
Oct 13 2004Petition for review granted (criminal case)
  Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Brown, and Moreno, JJ.
Oct 27 2004Order filed
  Appellant is directed to serve and file a Brief on the Merits on or before November 12, 2004. Additional briefing is to be served and filed in a timely fashion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29.1(a).)
Nov 3 2004Counsel appointment order filed
  Upon request of appellant for appointment of counsel, Jeane Courtney Van Derhoff is hereby appointed to represent appellant on her appeal now pending in this court. Appellant's brief on the merits must be served and filed on or before thirty (30) days form the date of this order.
Nov 23 2004Request for extension of time filed
  Appellant requesting to Dec. 20, 2004 to file opening brief on the merits.
Nov 30 2004Extension of time granted
  to and including Dec. 20, 2004 for appellant to file opening brief on the merits.
Dec 17 2004Request for extension of time filed
  filed n San Diego by counsel for appellant: requesting a 30-day extension to and including January 19, 2005 to file appellant's opening brief on the merits.
Dec 29 2004Extension of time granted
  To January 19, 2005 to file appellant's opening breif on the merits. Based on the representation of Jeanne Courtney Vanderhoff, counsel for appellant, that she anticipates filing appellant's opening brief on the merits within that time; no further extensions of time are contemplated.
Jan 19 2005Opening brief on the merits filed
  In San Diego by counsel for appellant {Lisa Marie Cage}.
Feb 14 2005Request for extension of time filed
  filed n San Diego by respondent The People: requesting a 30-day extension to and including March 21, 2005 to file respondent's answer brief on the merits.
Feb 24 2005Extension of time granted
  To March 21, 2005 to file respondent's Answer Brief on the Merits.
Mar 16 2005Request for extension of time filed
  filed in San Diego by respondent The People: asking for a 14-day extension to and including April 4, 2005, to file respondent's answer brief on the merits.
Mar 23 2005Extension of time granted
  To April 4, 2005 to file Respondent's Answer Brief on the Merits. No further extensions will be granted.
Apr 1 2005Answer brief on the merits filed
  In San Diego by counsel for Respondent.
Apr 21 2005Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
  In San Diego by counsel for appellant {Lisa Marie Cage}.
May 20 2005Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief
  by the California District Attorneys Association in support of respondent.
May 25 2005Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted
  California District Attorneys Association in support of respondent.
May 25 2005Amicus curiae brief filed
  by the California District Attorneys Association in support of respondent. Answer is due within twenty days.
Jun 14 2005Response to amicus curiae brief filed
  In San Diego by counsel for appellant {Lisa M. Cage} to AC breif filed by The California District Attorneys Association.
Jun 28 2006Supplemental briefing ordered
  The parties may submit supplemental briefs addressing the effect, if any, of Davis v. Washington, 05-5224, and Hammon v. Indiana, 05-5705 (June 19, 2006) ___ U.S. ___ [2006 WL 1667285] on the issues presented by this case. Briefs shall be in simultaneous letter form. The parties are directed to file simultaneous briefs on or before July 18, 2006. Simultaneous response briefs may be filed on or before July 28, 2006.
Jul 14 2006Received:
  Supplemental amicus curiae brief in support of respondent The California District Attorneys Association, amicus curiae Paul Vinegrad, Counsel
Jul 18 2006Letter brief filed
  Lisa M. Cage, Appellant Jeanne C. Vanderhoff, Counsel
Jul 18 2006Letter brief filed
  Attorney General Scott C. Taylor, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Jul 19 2006Change of contact information filed for:
  Jeanne C. Vanderhoff
Jul 28 2006Supplemental brief filed
  Reply to supplemental brief by respondent Lisa M. Cage, Appellant Jeanne C. Vanderhoff, Counsel
Aug 1 2006Received:
  Reply to supplemental brief by amicus curiae California District Attorneys Association Lisa M. Cage, Appellant Jeanne C. Vanderhoff, Counsel
Oct 23 2006Received:
  One manila envelope (exhibits:audio tape and exhibit 16 b & c).
Dec 5 2006Case ordered on calendar
  Tuesday, January 9, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco
Dec 28 2006Filed:
  Additonal authorities, The People, Respondent Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorney General
Jan 9 2007Cause argued and submitted
 
Jan 9 2007Letter sent to:
 
Jan 12 2007Received:
  Exhibts 1-12 from the Superior Court of Riverside County.
Apr 6 2007Notice of forthcoming opinion posted
 
Apr 9 2007Opinion filed: Judgment affirmed in full
  Majority Opinion by: Baxter, J. Joined by: George, C.J., Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, Corrigan, J.J. Dissenting opinion by: Kennard, J.
May 14 2007Remittitur issued (criminal case)
 
May 21 2007Received:
  Receipt for Remittitur, CA4 Div. 2
Oct 25 2007Compensation awarded counsel
  Atty Vanderhoff
Sep 24 2008Exhibit(s) returned
  #16B (transcript) and #16C (audio tape), To Riverside Superior Court
Dec 18 2008Compensation awarded counsel
  Atty Vanderhoff

Briefs
Jan 19 2005Opening brief on the merits filed
 
Apr 1 2005Answer brief on the merits filed
 
Apr 21 2005Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
 
May 25 2005Amicus curiae brief filed
 
Jun 14 2005Response to amicus curiae brief filed
 
If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website