Does the prosecution have a duty to obtain the witness in order to introduce the witness at trial?

exercise reasonable diligence in securing the victim's attendance at trial; therefore, the defendant's right to confrontation had been violated and judgment on that particular count was properly reversed. (Id. at pp. 904-905.) In People v. Sandoval (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1425, the trial court permitted the prosecution to introduce at trial the preliminary hearing testimony of a victim and percipient witness to other charged offenses despite the fact that the prosecution averred it was unable to obtain his presence at trial. (Id. at pp. 1428-1433.) The appellate court held that the People failed to exercise reasonable efforts to secure the victim's presence at trial; thus, defendant's right to confrontation of the witnesses against him had been violated, resulting in prejudicial error. (Id. at pp. 1428, 1445.) Thus, all the cases exposited by defendant involve situations where evidence obtained from a particular witness on a contested issue was used against the defendant at trial, but the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial because the People failed to exercise reasonable efforts to obtain the witnesses' presence at trial. Here, as noted above, no evidence obtained from the victim relevant to defendant's defense was adduced at trial; thus, defendant had no right to confront the victim on that issue at trial.

Defendant's contention that the prosecution's failure to produce the victim at trial prejudiced her defense is more appropriately framed as a violation of her Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process; but even so cast, defendant's argument would fail. "Generally, it is not the duty of the prosecution to produce or to keep track of witnesses the defendant may later wish to have testify. (People v. Rance (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 245, 253.) "'[A]n accused is not entitled to a dismissal simply because he is

Page 15