What is the current state of the law on "hearsay" in the context of video evidence in a robbery case?

The Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause provides that "'[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.'" (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 42.) The confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial, unless he was unavailable to testify, and defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. (Id. at pp. 53-54.)

Obviously, the video contains no hearsay. The clerk's movements were not intended as a communication. (People v. Myers (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1223, 1226-1227 [store clerk's raised hands during commission of robbery constituted non-hearsay].) They were operative

Page 7

actions made in response to demands, and were relevant simply because the actions occurred, thereby permitting the inference that the clerk was afraid and submitting to defendant's orders. There was no statement that could be offered for its truth within the meaning of the hearsay rule. (People v. Rogers (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1136, 1162 [a person's "nonverbal, nonassertive, emotional behavior" is not hearsay].)