California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Dixon is that grand jury proceeding transcripts and police reports containing witness statements are inadmissible at Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearings, under circumstances where the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the documents constitute multiple levels of hearsay without applicable exceptions.

Appeal from judgment after evidentiary hearing in Superior Court, Kern County.

Defendant Appellant was Kevin Christopher Dixon — the murder defendant who pleaded no contest and later filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking to deny the petition based on grand jury transcripts and police reports.

The suit sounded in murder felony sentencing relief. No cross-claims were identified.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Dixon participated in a 2006 gang-related murder of Kisasi Baltrip where multiple defendants fired handguns at the victim's vehicle. Dixon pleaded no contest to second degree murder in 2009 and was sentenced to 25 years to life. In 2019, he filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, which provides relief for defendants convicted under the felony murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied the section 1172.6 petition after an evidentiary hearing, ruling that grand jury transcripts were admissible as "evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing" and that police reports were admissible despite containing hearsay statements.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether grand jury proceeding transcripts are admissible at section 1172.6 evidentiary hearings under the exception for "evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial." 2. Whether police reports and witness statements recorded by law enforcement are admissible when they contain multiple levels of hearsay without established exceptions.

The Appellate Court held that section 1172.6(d)(3)'s exception for evidence "previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial" does not encompass grand jury proceedings because they are investigatory rather than adjudicative, evidence is "received" not "admitted," and excluding such evidence aligns with the Legislature's intent to tighten evidentiary standards while ensuring fairness and reliability.

The case is inapplicable when the evidence was actually admitted at an adversarial hearing or trial where the defendant had opportunity for cross-examination, or when proper hearsay exceptions exist for all levels of out-of-court statements in law enforcement documents.

The case leaves open what specific types of evidence the prosecution may present on remand, and how courts should handle situations where petitioners successfully demonstrate no substantial evidence supports denial even considering erroneously admitted evidence.