What is the test for admitting testimony from a deputy sheriff about incriminating statements he overheard at a jury trial?

Hoang mistakenly relies on People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233 (Cummings). One issue in that appeal from a death penalty judgment was whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony from a deputy sheriff about incriminating statements he overheard while escorting appellant and a codefendant to their cells during a break in the jury trial. The appellant argued that "admitting the testimony of a trusted court officer, who had been involved in seating and escorting the jurors and relaying juror messages to the court, would deny due process and a fair and impartial trial." (Id. at p. 1289.) Rejecting this claim, the Cummings court found that the deputy was not a principal or key prosecution witness, had relatively little and purely professional direct contact with the members of the jury, and was promptly removed from those duties when he became a witness. In addition, "[t]he jury was admonished that all witnesses' testimony was to be judged on the same basis and that no greater weight should be accorded to [the deputy] because he had been a deputy in the court." (Id. at pp. 1290-1291.)