Key Portion of Prop. 115 OKd by High Court : Evidence: State justices unanimously allow police to present hearsay testimony during a preliminary hearing. Ruling is expected to help speed up criminal trials.

The state Supreme Court on Monday upheld a key part of Proposition 115 aimed at speeding up criminal cases, ruling that police officers may present hearsay testimony from victims and other witnesses at preliminary hearings.

The court unanimously gave a legal green light to one of the most far-reaching components of the June, 1990, initiative known as the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act.

Before the measure was approved, hearsay--or secondhand testimony--was barred at preliminary hearings, which are held by a judge to see if there is sufficient evidence to hold a defendant for trial. Each side tests its case in such proceedings, often providing the basis for a plea-bargain.

Under the initiative, police officers with five years’ experience were allowed to present statements from other witnesses, including officers. The aim is to shorten the length of preliminary hearings and ease burdens on victims and other witnesses who must later testify at trials.

Some preliminary hearings in complex cases have gone on almost as long as trials. An oft-cited example was the 18-month preliminary hearing in the McMartin preschool child molestation case.

In the ruling, the justices rejected claims that the initiative violated a defendant’s constitutional right to confront and question his accusers.

The court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, said the right to confrontation is basically a right reserved for the trial itself--and that under the Constitution, preliminary hearings “need not include traditional adversary safeguards.”

Hearsay testimony is permissible as long as the testifying officer has sufficient knowledge of the crime and the circumstances to “materially assist” a judge in assessing the reliability of the statements, Lucas wrote in a 30-page majority opinion.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Laurence K. Sullivan welcomed the ruling. “I would expect this will pay off many times in terms of protecting victims and providing speedier trials,” Sullivan said.

Santa Clara County Deputy Public Defender Susan R. Bernardini, representing the defendant in the case, said she was pleased that the court “put the brakes on” by barring testimony by officers not involved in the case. But she voiced disappointment that the court is otherwise permitting hearsay.

“The credibility of a witness can only be determined by the presence of the witness in court,” Bernardini said. “Now a judge will be denied the opportunity to look at that witness and evaluate the testimony. . . . That is unfortunate.”

The case arose from the August, 1990, arrest in San Jose of Thomas Paul Whitman on suspicion of drunk driving and being under the influence of methamphetamine.

At Whitman’s preliminary hearing, the arresting officer’s report was given to a second officer who read it in court but could answer no questions from defense attorneys based on his own knowledge.

Whitman challenged the procedure as unconstitutional, but was ordered to stand trial on the basis of the officer’s testimony. Whitman appealed and has been free while the case was pending.

In making their ruling, the justices also set aside the charges against Whitman, saying that the testifying officer lacked sufficient involvement in the investigation and was merely a reader reciting a report from others. Allowing testimony from uninformed officers would “sanction a form of double or multiple hearsay” beyond the intent of Proposition 115, Lucas wrote. Charges against Whitman can be refiled, the court said.

But the court rejected the broader claim by defense attorneys that the constitutional right to confrontation was violated by hearsay testimony from an officer. The U.S. Supreme Court, Lucas said, has repeatedly held that that right was aimed only at preventing the use of out-of-court statements against a defendant at trial.

In a separate opinion, Justice Joyce L. Kennard agreed that the initiative provision was constitutional but expressed concern that the court had not drawn a “bright-line” rule to establish clearly how much knowledge about the case is required of a testifying officer. The majority’s “vague test,” Kennard said, “is likely to mire the criminal justice system in confusion.”

Proposition 115, passed with 57% of the vote, provided sweeping limitations on the rights of defendants and a series of procedural changes aimed at accelerating the criminal justice process.