DUI Lawyer | Joel Brand, Esq.

Excluding Hearsay Evidence at the DMV Hearing

Facing a DUI charge in California involves not just the criminal court process but also a DMV administrative hearing that determines the fate of your driver’s license. The DMV hearing is a crucial aspect of your defense strategy. One of the key challenges in these hearings is dealing with hearsay evidence, which the DMV often relies upon. Understanding how to exclude hearsay evidence can significantly impact the outcome of your hearing.

What is Hearsay Evidence?

Hearsay evidence is any statement made outside of the current hearing or trial that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible because it does not allow for cross-examination of the declarant (the person who made the original statement). However, there are numerous exceptions to this rule.

Legal Definition

According to California Evidence Code Section 1200:

  • Hearsay Evidence: “Evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.”
  • Inadmissibility: “Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.”

The Role of Hearsay in DMV Hearings

DMV hearings differ from criminal trials in several significant ways, particularly regarding the rules of evidence. While hearsay is generally inadmissible in criminal courts, DMV hearings often allow hearsay under certain conditions.

Officer’s Statements

A common example of hearsay in DMV hearings is the use of the DS367 form, which includes statements made by the arresting officer. This form is often submitted in lieu of live testimony from the officer.

Chemical Test Results

Statements regarding chemical test results made by technicians who are not present at the hearing can also be considered hearsay.

Excluding Hearsay Evidence

Despite the DMV’s leniency towards hearsay, there are still strategies to exclude or challenge such evidence effectively.

Objecting to Hearsay

When hearsay evidence is presented, your attorney can object to its admissibility. The objection should be based on the grounds that the evidence is hearsay and does not fall within any of the exceptions provided by law.

Establishing Lack of Foundation

Another strategy is to demonstrate that the evidence lacks proper foundation. For instance, if a chemical test result is presented without sufficient information about the testing procedures and calibration of the equipment, it can be challenged as unreliable.

Demonstrating Unreliability

Hearsay evidence can be excluded if it can be shown to be unreliable. This can be achieved by pointing out inconsistencies or errors in the officer’s statement or the procedures followed during the arrest and testing.

Subpoenaing Witnesses

Your attorney can subpoena witnesses, such as the arresting officer or the technician who conducted the chemical test. By doing so, you force the DMV to rely on live testimony, which can then be cross-examined.

Legal Precedents

Several legal precedents can be used to argue against the admissibility of hearsay evidence in DMV hearings:

  • People v. Carrell, 31 Cal.3d 924 (1982): This case highlights the importance of the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.
  • People v. Alvarado, 193 Cal.App.3d 806 (1987): This ruling emphasizes that hearsay evidence should be scrutinized for reliability and credibility.

Common Hearsay Exceptions and How to Challenge Them

Business Records Exception

Under California Evidence Code Section 1271, business records can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule. However, to qualify, the records must be made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the event, and by a person with knowledge of the event.

Challenge:

  • Authenticity: Question the authenticity of the record and whether it meets the criteria outlined in the Evidence Code.
  • Proper Foundation: Argue that the DMV has not laid a proper foundation for the business records exception.

Public Records Exception

California Evidence Code Section 1280 allows for the admission of public records if they are made by a public employee within the scope of their duty.

Challenge:

  • Timeliness: Argue that the record was not made at or near the time of the event.
  • Reliability: Demonstrate that the procedures followed in creating the record were not reliable.

Official Duty Exception

Statements made by a public officer as part of their official duty can be admitted under California Evidence Code Section 1280.

Challenge:

  • Scope of Duty: Argue that the statement was not made within the scope of the officer’s duty.
  • Lack of Personal Knowledge: Highlight that the officer did not have personal knowledge of the facts stated.

Practical Tips for Excluding Hearsay Evidence

Thorough Preparation

Preparation is key. Review all the evidence in the DMV Discovery Packet and identify potential hearsay statements.

Effective Cross-Examination

Cross-examine any witnesses to highlight inconsistencies and challenge the reliability of hearsay statements.

Legal Arguments

Be prepared to present well-reasoned legal arguments based on California Evidence Code and relevant case law.

Documentation

Keep detailed records of all objections and rulings during the DMV hearing. This can be crucial if you need to appeal the DMV’s decision.

Conclusion

Excluding hearsay evidence at a DMV hearing is a complex but essential part of defending against a DUI charge. By understanding the legal standards and employing strategic objections, you can challenge the admissibility of hearsay evidence and strengthen your defense. Always consult with a skilled DUI attorney who can navigate these intricacies and advocate effectively on your behalf.

Citations

  1. California Evidence Code § 1200
  2. California Evidence Code § 1271
  3. California Evidence Code § 1280
  4. People v. Carrell, 31 Cal.3d 924 (1982)
  5. People v. Alvarado, 193 Cal.App.3d 806 (1987)