California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Dixon is that grand jury proceeding transcripts are not admissible under Penal Code section 1172.6(d)(3)'s hearsay exception for evidence previously admitted at a prior hearing or trial, under circumstances where the Legislature used specific statutory language referring to "hearings" and "trials" while grand jury proceedings are designated as "proceedings" or "sessions" in the statutory scheme and lack adversarial safeguards.

Appeal from order denying petition for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 after evidentiary hearing in Superior Court, Kern County.

Defendant Appellant was Kevin Christopher Dixon — the defendant who pleaded no contest to second degree murder in 2009 and later sought resentencing relief under section 1172.6.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution opposing Dixon's petition for resentencing relief.

The suit sounded in postconviction relief seeking resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95). No cross-claims.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Dixon's 2009 no contest plea to second degree murder arising from a 2006 gang-related shooting death of Kisasi Baltrip, where Dixon and codefendants were charged based on grand jury indictment, and Dixon later sought relief under section 1172.6 claiming he could no longer be convicted of murder under current law due to changes in murder liability theories.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Dixon's section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, ruling that Dixon was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, based on evidence including grand jury transcripts, police reports, and witness statements.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether grand jury proceeding transcripts are admissible under section 1172.6(d)(3)'s hearsay exception for evidence previously admitted at a prior hearing or trial. 2. Whether police reports and law enforcement-generated documents containing hearsay statements are admissible at section 1172.6 evidentiary hearings.

The Appellate Court held that grand jury proceeding transcripts and police reports containing hearsay witness statements are not admissible under section 1172.6(d)(3) because grand jury proceedings are investigatory "proceedings" or "sessions" rather than adjudicative "hearings," evidence is "received" rather than "admitted" at grand jury proceedings, and the Legislature specifically excluded certain preliminary hearing hearsay while making no similar exclusion for grand jury hearsay, indicating grand jury transcripts were not contemplated as admissible.

The case is inapplicable when evidence was previously admitted at an actual adjudicative hearing or trial (such as preliminary hearings or jury trials) where judicial officers presided and adversarial safeguards existed, or when proper hearsay exceptions can be established for each layer of hearsay in law enforcement documents.

The case leaves open how the California Supreme Court will ultimately resolve the split of authority regarding grand jury transcript admissibility (noting People v. Robinson is pending review), and what specific types of admissible evidence the prosecution may present at a new evidentiary hearing to meet its burden under section 1172.6.