On the basis that a probation officer report is inadmissible hearsay, what is the defense's position not to call any witnesses or cross-examine the probation officers?

Defense counsel objected, inter alia, on the ground that the contents of the section 777 notice constituted inadmissible hearsay. Citing People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631, 875 P.2d 736, he argued that admission of the report into evidence would deny appellant his federal and state constitutional rights to cross-examine the witnesses against him. Counsel argued that "it should [not] be the defense's burden to call any witnesses against the defendant. So our position at this time is that we object to the report and we are still ready to proceed with the case, although we are not going to call any witnesses at this time." When the court asked counsel whether he did not intend to cross-examine the probation officers, counsel explained, "My position would be that the defendant does not have the burden of calling or cross-examining witnesses if [sic] the court or the prosecutor calls them.... We're objecting to the report and not calling any witnesses."

[125 Cal.Rptr.2d 264]