Rupf v. Yan

In Rupf v. Yan (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 411, at a forfeiture proceeding concerning firearms confiscated pursuant to section 8102, while Yan's mental condition was being evaluated under section 5150, the trial court admitted the testimony of the detaining officer, Deputy Sheriff Richard Fuller, regarding his observations of Yan and Yan's admissions to him (Fuller). ( Rupf v. Yan, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th 411, 418-419.) Following the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court issued its "'Statement of Decision and Order' granting the sheriff's department's petition and ordering that the confiscated firearms not be returned to Yan." ( Id. at p. 419.) Yan appealed and challenged the trial court's order on the grounds "the determination was based entirely upon inadmissible hearsay evidence and that absent such evidence, the determination could not stand." ( Id. at p. 428.) Rejecting Yan's contention, the appellate court stated, "Clearly any firsthand observations by Fuller, either were not hearsay or, if contained in the sheriff's report prepared by him, were admissible under the official records exception. (Evid. Code, 1280.) Fuller's observations, contained in the sheriff's report, that Yan admitted he had taken the pills, that he had done so deliberately and that he was 'depressed about work and school' were admissible under the official records exception. So, too, was Fuller's observation that Yan then became 'unresponsive.' Yan's admissions to Fuller . . . were admissible . . . under the party admission exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, 1220.) . . . So too, Fuller's opinion that Yan was a danger to himself and others and should be detained for observation was properly based on the totality of information Fuller had at the time and was properly admitted even if based in part upon hearsay, as it is apparent the information upon which he relied was that type routinely relied upon by officers in making decisions of this sort. (Evid. Code, 801.)" ( Rupf v. Yan, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th 411, 431-432.) Given the testimony of Fuller, the appellate court found that the trial court could conclude that Yan was suffering from depression, that such depression was likely to reoccur, and that "the return of semiautomatic weapons to someone in these circumstances was likely to pose a danger to that person and to others." ( Id. at p. 433.)