In People v. Lebell (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 772, the defendant was convicted as an accessory to murder after the fact. Evidence was introduced at trial that the defendant's voice was heard in the background while the perpetrator of the murder was confessing his guilt in a recorded telephone call made from the defendant's home. (Id. at pp. 775-776.) The Lebell court held that the evidence of the defendant's presence, while the perpetrator was confessing to murder, was insufficient to establish an adoptive admission that the defendant was an accessory after the fact to the murder. (Id. at p. 780.) The Lebell court explained that, "While it is true that 'Evidence of a statement offered against a party is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is one of which the party, with knowledge of the content thereof, has by words or other conduct manifested his adoption or his belief in its truth' (Evid. Code, 1221), it is likewise the case that, where the admissibility of evidence depends on the existence of a preliminary fact, the burden is upon the proponent thereof to establish such existence and that it is incumbent on the trial court to see such evidence is disregarded where the jury could not reasonably find that the preliminary fact exists. (Evid. Code, 400-403.)" (Lebell, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at p. 779.) In Lebell, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d 772, the court concluded the evidence did not qualify as an adoptive admission because the witness's testimony was to the effect only that he heard the defendant's voice in the background while the perpetrator made incriminating statements. (Id. at pp. 779-780.) The Lebell court held the proffered evidence of adoption of the perpetrator's statements by defendant should have been excluded because there was nothing from which it could reasonably have been surmised the defendant heard what the perpetrator said or that, if he did, there was any reason or opportunity for him to respond. (Id. at p. 780.)