Hearsay and Police Reports

Doe v. Brightstar Residential, Inc., No. B304084 (D2d8 Mar. 10, 2022)

Plaintiff, who is severely mentally disabled, was sexually molested by a handyman at the Facility she lived at. The assailant fled the county and Plaintiff sued the Facility. The trial court granted summary judgment for the facility, finding no evidence that the attack was foreseeable.

Plaintiff did submit evidence on the point in the form of a police report. But the trial court found it was inadmissible hearsay and excluded it.

Police reports are, quite often, inadmissible multiple hearsay. Especially in criminal cases where they create confrontation problems. But that doesn’t always have to be the case in civil cases.

The police report here contained two sets of relevant statements about the Facility’s knowledge of the handyman’s creepiness: (1) statements by the owner of the Facility about his interactions with the handyman; and (2) statements by the Facility’s employees regarding observed interactions between the handyman and the Plaintiff.

Like any multiple hearsay scenario, the key is to look for an exception at each step on the chain. See Evid. Code § 1201. 

As to the first set of statements, the Facility’s owner told the police that the handyman had “a history of loitering around the facility and harassing female employees.” So, at the first level—the owner’s statement to the police—there’s a party admission. § 1220. And then the second level—the officer’s recounting the oral statement in a written report—is a record of a public employee. § 1280. Generally, that exception applies when the writing is within the scope of the employee’s duty, it was made at or near the time of the events recounted in it, and the circumstances of its preparation generally indicate its trustworthiness. Id. The exception is like the business records exception, except that there’s less need to lay a foundation regarding the method in which the document was prepared, because of the presumption that public officers properly perform their duties. Accord § 664. Here, the elements of the exception all apply.

The second group of statements are those of other employees at the Facility. In particular, one employee heard Plaintiff refer to the Handyman as “daddy.” But there are also other similar statements. At the first level—what Plaintiff said to Handyman—the statement is not offered for its truth. It was not offered to show that Handyman, was, in fact, Plaintiff’s daddy, but to show the familiarity between them.

At the second level, the Court finds that the statement from Employees to the officer was offered to show the employees’ (and thus the Facility’s) knowledge of that familiarity, not for its truth. I’m not sure I 100% agree on this point. Isn’t the statement to the officer offered to show that employee actually heard what she heard? Then her knowledge regarding relations between Handyman and Plaintiff is an inference that can be drawn from that piece of evidence?

Like if I heard someone say “I am a rhinoceros.” And then I tell the police that that’s what I heard. It would be offered for the truth of what I told the officer—that I actually heard the declarant say he was a rhinoceros. That’s the case even if the ultimate relevance of what I heard is to provide a basis for an inference that the declarant was not of sound mind. But in any event, the Employees’ statements here, are, in all likelihood, party admissions, so no harm no foul.

And then the third step with the public records is the same.

Reversed.