## Facts

- Thomas Paul Whitman was charged with felony DUI-related counts with prior convictions and related misdemeanor offenses.
- At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution called only Officer Bruce Alexander.
- Alexander was neither the arresting nor investigating officer and had no personal knowledge of the alleged offenses.
- Over repeated hearsay objections, Alexander testified exclusively by reciting entries from the investigating officer’s (Officer Navin’s) report.
- On cross-examination, Alexander could not answer basic questions about the investigation or the circumstances described in the report.
- The magistrate nevertheless held Whitman to answer on all counts.
- Whitman moved to dismiss the information in superior court for lack of competent and sufficient evidence of probable cause; the motion was denied.
- After the Court of Appeal denied relief, the California Supreme Court granted review in a mandate proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether Proposition 115’s provisions permitting hearsay evidence at criminal preliminary hearings violate the federal or California Constitutions.
2. Whether probable cause may be established at a preliminary hearing solely through hearsay testimony by a noninvestigating officer with no personal knowledge who merely reads another officer’s report.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 115’s preliminary-hearing hearsay provisions as constitutionally valid when narrowly construed and properly applied.
- The Court held the evidence at Whitman’s preliminary hearing was incompetent and insufficient to establish probable cause.
- The Court directed issuance of a writ of mandate requiring dismissal of the information.

## Legal Principles

- Proposition 115 authorizes limited use of hearsay at preliminary hearings, consistent with due process and with the understanding that the Sixth Amendment confrontation right is primarily a trial right.
- Even under Proposition 115, the prosecution must present competent evidence supporting probable cause; streamlined procedure does not eliminate minimum reliability requirements.
- Hearsay testimony at a preliminary hearing must come from a properly qualified peace officer with sufficient connection to, knowledge of, or responsibility for the investigation to permit meaningful cross-examination and a reliable probable-cause assessment.
- Probable cause cannot be supported solely by a “reader” witness who lacks personal knowledge and cannot explain how the reported facts were obtained or recorded.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Proposition 115’s general authorization of preliminary-hearing hearsay but required a reliability-based limitation: binding a defendant over for trial cannot rest entirely on an uninvolved officer’s recital of another officer’s report, and where the prosecution proceeds that way, the information must be dismissed for lack of competent probable-cause evidence.


Whitman v. Superior Court, 820 P.2d 262 (Cal. 1991)