People v. Gray
Annotate this Case
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment finding a probation violation in this case where a video recording from a bodycam worn by a police officer depicted a visibly distraught woman reporting that her boyfriend had beat her up. The court explained that, although her statement qualifies as an "excited utterance" admissible under the hearsay rule, it is inadmissible at trial under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, as construed in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, if she is unavailable as a witness. However, the court reasoned that the right to cross-examination at a probation violation hearing is governed—not by the Confrontation Clause—but by due process.
The court sided with People v. Stanphill (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 61, 78, and held that the admissibility of the bodycam video under the excited utterance exception satisfies the minimum requirements of due process applicable at probation violation hearings. The court explained that due process is about reliability, and the Confrontation Clause is about confrontation. Because the bodycam video is reliable enough to fall within the firmly rooted hearsay exception for excited utterances, the court concluded that the dictates of due process are satisfied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.