Is hearsay evidence admissible in the case of the police officer who testified that he shot and killed the teenager?

The relevant testimony by the officers is indisputably hearsay. The officers repeated out-of-court statements made by bystanders about who shot Pearson. See Cal. Evid. Code 1200 ("'Hearsay evidence' is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated."). Out-of-court statements are inherently unreliable because "[t]he declarant might be lying; he might have misperceived the events which he relates; he might have faulty memory; his words might be misunderstood or taken out of context by the listener." See Williamson v. U.S., 512 U.S. 594, 598 (1994). Thus, as every lawyer knows, hearsay is inadmissible unless an exception applies.

No exception applied to the officers' testimony. Although the bystanders' statements to the officers were in all likelihood spontaneous, the trial court could have no assurance that they "purport[ed] to narrate, describe, or explain an act, condition, or event perceived by the declarant." See Cal. Evid. Code 1240 (emphasis added). See People v. Phillips, 22 Cal.4th 226, 235 (2000) (holding that under Evidence Code section 1240, "a hearsay statement, even if otherwise spontaneous, is admissible only if it relates to an event the declarant perceived personally. Otherwise, the statement would be hearsay on hearsay and admissible only if each layer of hearsay separately met the requirements of an exception to the hearsay rule."). The bystanders could merely have been repeating what other bystanders told them. The statements should not have come into evidence.