Grand Jury Transcripts and Police Reports Received by Grand Juries are Inadmissible at a PC §1172.6 Hearing.

 

People v. Dixon (4^th Dist., Div. 3, 01/26/26)

 

March 2007, a grand jury indicted Dixon for murder.  In 2009, Dixon pled nolo to murder in the second as part of a plea deal in which he received a 25-life sentence.  In 2019, he petitioned for resentencing under [now] PC §1172.6.  Following an erroneous summary dismissal, Dixon finally got his 1172.6 hearing in 2023. 

At the hearing, the plaintiff asked to admit into evidence, among other documents, the change of plea transcript, police reports, and portions of the grand jury transcript.  Dixon objected to the police reports and grand jury transcripts. 

Plaintiff argued the grand jury transcripts and police reports were admissible because Dixon had stipulated to them as a factual basis during his change of plea hearing.  The trial court rejected this argument but admitted them on the basis that grand jury transcripts were admissible under 1172.6(d)(3), which excepts “evidence previously admitted at any prior hearing or trial that is admissible under the current law[.]”  Since the police reports were received by  the grand jury for its consideration, the trial court ruled them likewise admissible.

The trial court made extensive factual findings from the police reports and grand jury transcripts, found Dixon was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, and denied the petition.  Dixon appealed.

The appellate panel reverses and remands for a new hearing.

Whether grand jury transcripts are admissible in 1172.6 hearings is currently before the California Supremes in People v. Robinson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5^th 854.  This panel agrees with the dissenting judge in Robinson and finds the grand jury transcripts inadmissible. 

The opinion’s analysis turns on the interpretation of two legal terms, “hearing,” and “admitted,” within the phrase “previously admitted at any hearing.”  The panel notes that grand jury proceedings are almost always referred to as “sessions” or “proceedings,” because grand juries are investigatory events, not adversarial adjudicative events. 

Much in the same vein, evidence is not “admitted,” to a grand jury (there is no judge present to make admissibility determinations) rather it is “received” by a grand jury.  The panel concludes that grand jury proceedings, entirely free from adversarial testing and without any presiding judge, fall short of the standards of reliability and fairness intended by the legislature for 1172.6 evidentiary hearings.