In what circumstances will a witness be able to produce a written, signed statement after suffering retrograde amnesia?

In People v. Simmons, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at pages 682 to 683, the facts were different than in the present case: "[T]he witness does not recall any event recorded in his prior statement, nor even making it or any circumstance surrounding its preparation. At best he can identify his signature affixed to the bottom of the transcription. Therefore, when he states that to the best of his knowledge he had no reason to lie when the statement was prepared, it is clear he could have stated with equal conviction to the best of his (nonexistent) knowledge he had had ample reason to lie. The fact is, he simply has no knowledge at all. One who has no knowledge as to the truth or falsity of a representation may honestly say it is either true or false to the best of his knowledge with neither rejoinder having any evidentiary value."

In People v. Simmons, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at page 679, the witness, after making a written, signed statement to the police, received a serious head injury, causing retrograde amnesia. The court noted that Evidence Code section 1237 was intended to "recognize[] that time universally erodes human memory, although to a

Page 15

greater or lesser degree depending on circumstances and individual characteristics. The motive behind section 1237 is to allow previously recorded statements into evidence where the trustworthiness of the contents of those statements is attested to by the maker, subject to the test of cross-examination, a procedure not meaningfully available here." (People v. Simmons, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at p. 682.) Here, Geddes did attest to the trustworthiness of the statements she made to the police officer, and was available for cross-examination. Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, neither the statute nor the case law interpreting it requires that Geddes testify to the truthfulness of each and every specific statement within the officer's report.