How have courts dealt with multiple hearsay claims pursuant to section 6600(a)(3)?

The defendant in People v. Carlin, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th 322, also asserted a due process challenge to multiple hearsay purportedly admitted pursuant to section 6600(a)(3). There, the contested hearsay statements of a victim were made nine years after the defendant had been convicted and sentenced for molesting the victim who was 10 years old at the time of the molestation in 1990. (People v. Carlin, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 336.) The contested hearsay statement contained details of the incident that not only had not been revealed before, but were also inconsistent with previous statements by the victim. (Id. at pp. 336-337.)

The appellate court concluded the mere use of postconviction evidence is not contrary to the plain language of section 6600(a)(3). (People v. Carlin, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 339.) After all, the statute specifically permits state hospital reports to be used to show the existence of prior convictions and "[t]he details underlying the commission of an offense that led to a prior conviction. . . ." ( 6600, subd. (a)(3).) However, the Carlin court found the statements made almost a decade after the fact did not contain the indicia of reliability required in a due process analysis. (People v. Carlin, 150 Cal.4th at pp. 340-341.) "Here, the circumstances surrounding the 2000 and 2001 statements do not support their reliability. The statements were not spontaneous, are inconsistent with [the victim's] 1991 statements, and have not been corroborated. Additionally, the statements were not made in close proximity to the crime and were

Page 18