Opinion
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II.
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR460195
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
On the court’s own motion, the opinion filed June 8, 2007 is modified to change the paragraph found on page 8, which currently reads:
“We now apply the lessons of Maki, Winson and Arreola to this case. True, we are concerned with a witness’s live testimony regarding a declarant’s out-of-court statements rather than, as in Winson and Arreola, a declarant’s prior testimony. Both, however, are forms of testimonial hearsay evidence. (People v. Johnson, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1412 [testimonial evidence “is typically ‘[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact’].) As such, we conclude the good cause standard set forth in Winson and reaffirmed in Arreola is applicable, rather than the more lenient indicia of reliability standard set forth in Maki. We thus consider whether that good cause standard has been met.”
The above paragraph is modified to remove the cite to People v. Johnson, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1412 in its entirety, and replace it with a cite to Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 51-52. The changed paragraph should now read:
“We now apply the lessons of Maki, Winson and Arreola to this case. True, we are concerned with a witness’s live testimony regarding a declarant’s out-of-court statements rather than, as in Winson and Arreola, a declarant’s prior testimony. Both, however, are forms of testimonial hearsay evidence. (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 51-52.) As such, we conclude the good cause standard set forth in Winson and reaffirmed in Arreola is applicable, rather than the more lenient indicia of reliability standard set forth in Maki. We thus consider whether that good cause standard has been met.”
There is no change in the Judgment.