# People v. Maki

> California Supreme Court · September 3, 1985 · 39 Cal. 3d 707

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553108

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD L. MAKI, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 3, 1985
- **Citations:** 39 Cal. 3d 707; 217 Cal. Rptr. 676; 704 P.2d 743; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 330
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bird
- **Judges:** Lucas
- **Cited by:** 69 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553108

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that car rental and hotel receipts admitted to show defendant had violated probation by traveling out of area were hearsay not admissible under' any exception, but also holding that the admission of such improper evidence did not violate the confrontation clause under …

## Opinion text

*718 BIRD, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I write separately because the majority opinion blurs the question of admissibility of evidence with the issue of the sufficiency of evidence. The majority implicitly hold that the hotel receipt was admissible. Yet it is devoid of any of the indicia of reliability required for admissibility. On its face, there is no clue as to the time or manner of preparation. The receipt contains no signature or even Maki’s first name or initial. Further, the amount of money specified ($20.03) seems a questionable sum for a hotel room in 1983.
The majority use this receipt to corroborate the Hertz invoice. I fear that such reasoning could in future cases lead to the admission of unreliable hearsay and to revocations based on the cumulative weight of several items of unreliable hearsay.
Unless the majority have changed the rules of evidence, documents which do not fall within a recognized hearsay exception must be reliable in order to be admissible. I would so hold.
Reynoso, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9553108. Public record. Not legal advice.