Filed 9/2/26 P. v. Davenport CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule
8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B342717

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24CJCF00048)
v.

TYRELL DAVENPORT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Larry Fidler, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
 A jury convicted Tyrell Davenport of human trafficking,
pimping, and pandering multiple victims, including Aaliyah M.
Below, the trial court found that Aaliyah was unavailable to
testify at trial and admitted her prior preliminary hearing
testimony and recorded statements Aaliyah made to law
enforcement officers. On appeal, Davenport contends that the
trial court violated his confrontation rights by admitting this
evidence. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
I. Evidence at trial
Davenport was charged with crimes involving four victims:
Aaliyah M., Mackenzie S., Grace E., and Gillian B.1 At trial, the
prosecutor introduced expert testimony about the subculture of
pimping and human trafficking, Aaliyah’s preliminary hearing
testimony, and the testimony of law enforcement officers.
A. Expert testimony about the pimping subculture
The pimping and pandering subculture is referred to as
“the game” and uses terms of art. “Tricks” or “johns” are buyers
of sex work; sex workers are “toes,” “hoe[s],” “bitch[es],” “wifey,”
“the team,” or a “stable”; and traffickers and pimps are “king[s],”
“daddy,” “papa,” and “papy.”2 A “date” is negotiating and
completing a commercial sex act. “Smash” refers to sexual
intercourse or to inflicting punishment. A “track star” is a high
earning sex worker.

1 Davenport seeks reversal of only counts involving Aaliyah.

2 Although an expert differentiated between pimps and
traffickers based on whether they use force, we use the terms
interchangeably.

2
 Commercial sex work commonly occurs in the Figueroa
corridor, on G Street in San Bernardino, Holt in Pomona, and
Beach and Ball Roads in Anaheim. The area where sex workers
solicit customers is called the “blade,” the “track,” and “a stroll.”
Sex workers “ ‘choose up’ ” their pimps, agreeing to come
under the pimp’s management and supervision, a process also
called “ ‘come home.’ ” They also commonly pay a “choose-up fee”
to the pimp to come under the pimp’s management.
A pimp sets the rules of the game for sex workers, who are
punished for violating rules. Punishments include being made to
stay on the track to make more money, sleep and food
deprivation, public embarrassment, and public beatings. Sex
workers are not free to leave, and attempts to do so can be met
with these punishments. A sex worker who breaks the rules is a
“ ‘fag’ ” or “ ‘faggot.’ ”
Money and loyalty are the two most important things to
pimps. Thus, a “bottom bitch” is the pimp’s most trusted or
tenured sex worker and may supervise and train other sex
workers.
A pimp controls all aspects of sex workers’ lives, including
whether they can go to a store or buy a drink. Pimps supply their
sex workers with a specific number of condoms, both for safety
reasons and to account for how many customers the worker sees.
Sex workers turn over all earnings to their pimp or trafficker,
and withholding earnings is “tucking.”
To reinforce the notion that sex workers are commodities,
pimps “brand” them by tattooing a symbol on a visible part of
their body. Common symbols are “P” for pimp, a crown, and 16,
as the 16th letter of the alphabet is P.

3
 Megapersonals, Listcrawler, and Backpagepro are Internet
sites that advertise commercial sex work.
B. Aaliyah (counts 1–3)
After the trial court found Aaliyah unavailable to testify in
person at trial, her prior testimony at the preliminary hearing
was introduced. Law enforcement officers then testified about
their encounters with Aaliyah and Davenport.
1. Aaliyah’s preliminary hearing testimony
Aaliyah first met Davenport in November 2018, while she
was working for a different pimp in Las Vegas. She left her pimp
to work for Davenport in California. Aaliyah called Davenport
“IBN”—“It’s Better Now”—and “Daddy.” Davenport bought a
phone for Aaliyah to arrange dates or to post ads on the Internet.
Davenport took Aaliyah’s EBT card.
The first night that Aaliyah worked for Davenport, they
discussed what she should charge tricks. That first night, he
drove her to Figueroa, and she had around five dates. She
charged $60 for a blow job and $80 for sexual intercourse. After
each trick or earning a certain amount, she gave the money to
Davenport, because that was the “rule,” “you’re always supposed
to give the pimp the money. You’re not supposed to carry no
money.” Davenport never gave her any money. Instead, he
bought her “hoe clothes” and paid for her motel room and to get
her hair done.
Aaliyah worked every day for Davenport until December
2018. Davenport set her “trap” goal at $500 per night, but he

4
increased it to $700 when Aaliyah became his sole worker.3
During this time, she stayed at the Gardena Motel, paid for by
Davenport. Aaliyah mostly worked the blades on Figueroa and in
Pomona, Long Beach, Alameda, and Orange County. But she
also got work from ads either she or Davenport posted on
Megapersonals and Backpagepro. When she received work from
Internet ads, she worked her “in-calls” at the motel room or
Davenport drove her to “out-calls.” When she worked the blades,
Davenport always drove her. On one date, a trick dragged
Aaliyah out of his car and beat her.
Davenport hit Aaliyah almost every day because she had
an “attitude” or was “out-of-pocket.” On her birthday in
December 2018, Davenport hit Aaliyah while they were in his
car. He then drove her to the blade to work. After she finished
working, they had sex although Aaliyah did not want to. As a
birthday gift for Aaliyah, Davenport had her get tattoos of a
crown with 16 inside it and IBN on her face. Aaliyah said both
that Davenport forced her to get the tattoos and she wanted to be
his “bottom bitch.”
Aaliyah identified a photograph of herself with Davenport,
who was making “the pimp sign”—similar to the peace sign—
with his hands. She also identified a telephone number on an ad
featuring her as “IBN[‘s].”
2. Law enforcement officers’ testimony
Officers testified about their encounters with Aaliyah. On
December 16, 2018, Officer Keleigh Edwards was in the Figueroa
corridor, where she saw Aaliyah dressed in lingerie standing on

3 For a week or so, another sex worker, an Asian girl, stayed
with Aaliyah at the motel.

5
the roadway with other girls. Aaliyah ran when she saw the
officer, who found Aaliyah hiding in a truck bed. Aaliyah had
three condoms in her bra.
The officer’s body cam recorded the encounter between the
officer and Aaliyah, and it was played for the jury. Aaliyah said
her pimp, whom she called IBN or Tyrell, had driven her to the
location. She had been trying to get away from him, but he
branded her, “so … I don’t know.” Aaliyah said she did not want
to report him, she just wanted to go home and get out of the
game. She was staying at a motel in Gardena, and her pimp
would drop her off but not stay with her.
Back at the police station, Aaliyah gave additional recorded
statements to Officer Edwards. She said she met IBN, which
stood for It’s Better Now, in Las Vegas. His first name was
Tyrell. He forced her to have sex with him if she made more than
$500, and beat her if she made no money or talked back to him.
Aaliyah was cited for prostitution and taken to a shelter.
But three days later, on December 19, 2018, at about
3:00 a.m., officers saw Aaliyah get out of car driven by
Davenport, who then parked in a lot two blocks away. The
parking lot was a common hang out area for pimps who were
monitoring their sex workers. Aaliyah asked an undercover
officer what he wanted and quoted him $40 for a blow job. The
undercover officer asked if she “does sex,” and Aaliyah grabbed
his groin and said it was $80. The undercover officer then
signaled to his fellow officers to detain Aaliyah.
After she was detained, Aaliyah gave another recorded
statement to the police. She repeated that her pimp’s name was
IBN, which stood for It’s Better Now. She said she met
Davenport in Las Vegas while she was working for another pimp.

6
Davenport said he would treat her better, and he was chill and
laid back. She went to Los Angeles with Davenport and started
working on Figueroa and in Orange County and Pomona. At
first, an Asian girl was also working for Davenport, but she left.
When Aaliyah did not meet her $500 quota, Davenport would
make her stay out until 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. He set up on-line dates
for her as well. Davenport would also beat her. Once, a trick
pulled a knife on her, and when Aaliyah called Davenport for
help, he didn’t respond. When he finally arrived, Aaliyah was
mad, and Davenport slapped and choked her for being “out-of-
pocket.” From that day on, he slapped her every day. He would
tell her she had three days to shape up or he would beat her.
Aaliyah gave her cellphone number to investigators, and it
was the same number on an ad offering Aaliyah’s sex services.
An ad with Aaliyah’s photograph stated: “The right pick is me,
as you can see . . . I’m everything you could imagine & more so
when your [sic] done wasting your time with those boring girls
give me a call so I can show you just how I’m different [emojis] No
Rush [emoji] I love clean and respectful gentleman.” Another ad
said, “ ‘I’m here to please you in ways you’ve never felt before,
make you feel like the man that you are. I’m ready to moan to
your every stroke and show you a good time. So why wait? Let’s
play. $100 special. 15 minutes, $60. 30 minutes, $80.’ ”
Aaliyah’s phone had 500 calls to or from a contact listed as
“Daddy.” Daddy’s phone number was the same number on ads
featuring Aaliyah. In some texts, Aaliyah also referred to Daddy
as IBN and Tyrell. And at the preliminary hearing, Aaliyah
testified that the phone number belonged to IBN.
Other data extracted from Aaliyah’s cellphone included
message threads with Daddy: for example, Aaliyah saying she

7
was on a “date” who was “going to give me 100 to go to his house
is that fine with you,” and Daddy replying, “Yeah”; Aaliyah
reporting she was on an $80 date, a $50 “date for head,” and a
$100 date; Aaliyah saying she had a $100 date and giving Daddy
the motel address where she would be; Aaliyah asking, “U gonna
chop me?” and Daddy replying not to “come back broke”; Aaliyah
apologizing for making only $200 “last night”; Daddy telling her
to get dressed to “hit this blade”; and Aaliyah saying “he wanna
do 60 now and $120 later,” and Daddy’s reply, “ ‘tell him $100
now and $100 later.’ ”
In other threads, Aaliyah texted that she was not “making
shit” and was tired, but Daddy said, “u better get some money”
and “That faggot shit u got going on.” Aaliyah said, “either you
let me go back to the room or im falling asleep somewhere around
here Tyrell.” Aaliyah told him that he “shouldn’t have spent the
money I be giving you and learn how to save for shitty days like
this.” Daddy replied, “Bitch u better ztop [sic] saying my name,”
and that he had been driving back and forth “feeding yo dum [sic]
ass.” Aaliyah responded, that he wasn’t feeding her or “doing
shit for me that’s my hoe money not yours. I could’ve did what
Asian hoe did and stash on you and got on but I didn’t. You
acting hella weird now that’s why I stay my distance.”
On December 19, 2018, officers also arrested Davenport,
who said his name was “Billy Travion Davenport.” Davenport
had $427.55 in his sock and three phones. Law enforcement
found Aaliyah’s EBT card, birth certificate, social security card,
and a citation for prostitution in her name in Davenport’s car.
Davenport denied knowing Aaliyah, denied trafficking her, and
denied knowing what terms like “track” and “the blade” mean.

8
 The prosecution introduced photographs and videos
extracted from Davenport’s cellphone. They included videos of
Davenport using pimping subculture language; for example, “Ima
knock her,” meaning to steal a sex worker from another pimp,
and “put a bitch on da blade.” In other videos, Davenport says,
“ ‘IBN the Great,’ ” “ ‘IBN the P,’ ” “ ‘It’s Better Now,’ ” and “ ‘I
recruit hoes for a living.’ ” Photographs included Davenport
making a pimp sign with his hands over Aaliyah’s body;
Davenport wearing a shirt with IBN on it and throwing the pimp
sign; of Aaliyah that were used for Internet sex ads; and of
Aaliyah in lingerie holding up one to five fingers, which is a way
of verifying to johns “that’s the right person that they’re going to
meet.”
Law enforcement officers recovered hotel registration cards
listing Davenport’s license plate number and surveillance footage
of Davenport with Aaliyah from the Foxy Motor Inn and Gardena
Motel.
C. Mackenzie S. (counts 4–5)
Law enforcement officers found an Instagram account
called IBN Smash that they linked to Davenport. In a message
on the account, the user stated his name was Tyrell Davenport
and accurately identified his date of birth.
In March 2021, Mackenzie began working for Davenport.
In text exchanges between Mackenzie and IBN Smash, they
discussed her leaving her pimp, and how IBN Smash needed “ ‘a
real one that’s gonna B down for me,’ ” because one of his
“bitches” “ ‘ain’t no track star’ ” and the other was depressed.
IBN Smash said his “ ‘fee’ ” was “ ‘2400,’ ” and it was time to “
‘level up.’ ”

9
 After Mackenzie began working for Davenport, she had
encounters with law enforcement. On October 13, 2022, an
undercover officer in the area of Beach and Ball approached
Mackenzie, who told him it was $120 for “ ‘everything.’ ” He
replied he wanted only a blow job, and she said that was $80 and
got into the officer’s car. Mackenzie asked if she could touch the
officer, he said yes, and she grabbed his thigh and told him where
to drive. Officers detained Mackenzie but released her and
continued to monitor her. She and another woman were driven
to Holt Street in Pomona, and Mackenzie continued to solicit
passersby. On October 20, 2022, Mackenzie told an undercover
officer that a date was $120. An officer cited but released
Mackenzie.
Mackenzie got “ ‘prolific’ ” and “ ‘IBN,’ ” which she agreed
stood for It’s Better Now, tattooed on her face and hand.
Davenport posted a photograph of Mackenzie with the tattoo and
commented, “ ‘U know this bitch get branded cuz they
understand it.’ ”
Through a fake Instagram account, an officer posing as a
sex worker contacted IBN Smash. A female officer spoke to a
man, identified as Davenport by an officer familiar with his voice.
During the call, the officer used phrases significant to the
pimping and pandering subculture, telling Davenport she was
waiting for her “reg” (a regular client) to show up, and that she
was chilling with her “ex-wifey,” referring to another sex worker.
Davenport asked if she played the net, meaning post sex ads
online. He also said that he “ ‘heard Beach going back up too,’ ”
meaning that it was again becoming a good place to get sex work.
The officer asked what his “ ‘program’ ” would be like if she were
to “fuck with him”; whether he would get her a new phone; and if

10
he would “elevate” her. Davenport said they would talk about it
in person.
On January 23, 2022, Davenport texted a phone linked to
Mackenzie that she was “ ‘gonna make me fuk u up’ ” and asking
“ ‘how much money u got?’ ” When Mackenzie told him a trick
beat her, Davenport continued to ask how much money she had.
She told him she had $640, and, when he told her to get “ ‘yo ass
outside before I fuk u up,’ ”she replied she did not want to be hit
more and was in pain. Davenport replied to let him know when
“ ‘u got 10 bandz,’ ” referring to $1,000. After Mackenzie said she
would not let Davenport hit her again, he threatened to “ ‘break
yo face now.’ ”
A detective interviewed Mackenzie in May 2023. She
denied being trafficked but admitted to being a sex worker.
Mackenzie denied knowing that another sex worker, Grace
(referred to as “the girl”), was a minor, and she denied that
Davenport knew Grace’s real age. When the detective asked
Mackenzie if she was the “bottom,” she replied that she was “the
only bitch that was ever there.”
D. Grace E. (counts 6, 7, & 11)
Much of the evidence about Grace came from
communications between Instagram accounts associated with
Davenport and “Roulette,” a name Mackenzie used in an ad.
Mackenzie’s phone number was on commercial sex ads for Grace,
and she and Mackenzie were in a sex ad together. An ad was
posted when Grace was 17 years old.
In text exchanges, Mackenzie and Davenport discussed
taking Grace to an “outcall” with Mackenzie, that Davenport had
set up a $300 date for the new sex worker, referring to the new

11
sex worker as “ ‘a little girl,’ ” and Mackenzie wanting the “ ‘little
girl’ ” to go away because she had lied about her age.
E. Gillian B. (counts 8 & 9)
Gillian went by Kilo Gram and Kash. Instagram accounts
associated with Gillian and IBN Smash had exchanges in which
they discussed her coming to work for him, updating him on her
“dates,” and telling him, for example, that she was going to
“ ‘buss 100 dates the rest of the night.’ ”
The phone number used to verify IBN Smash’s Instagram
account was the same phone number on a sex ad featuring
Gillian. Photos of Davenport were posted on the account,
including of him making the pimp hand sign. When a user asked
IBN Smash for identifying information, IBN Smash identified
himself as Davenport.
Officers found a video of Davenport and Gillian in which
she said, “ ‘Maybe one day you can come fuck with my daddy.’ ”
After Davenport was arrested, Gillian deposited over
$1,500 into his inmate account. While in jail, Davenport spoke
over the phone to Gillian, who called him “ ‘daddy.’ ” He told her
she would be on “auto,” meaning continuing to fulfill her quotas
and turn over money. In another call, Davenport told Gillian
that she was supposed to be making “ten” $10,000, a week. When
she replied it was hard to make that much, he said, “ ‘bust it
down to five,’ ” $5,000.

12
II. Verdict and sentence
A jury convicted Davenport of human trafficking (Pen.
Code,4 § 236.1, subd. (b); counts 1 [Aaliyah] & 4 [Mackenzie]),
pimping (§ 266h, subd. (a); counts 2 [Aaliyah] & 8 [Gillian]),
pandering by encouraging (§ 266i, subd. (a)(2); counts 3 [Aaliyah],
5 [Mackenzie], & 9 [Gillian]), pandering by encouraging (§ 266i,
subd. (b)(1); count 7 [Grace]), human trafficking of a minor for a
commercial sex act (§ 236.1, subd. (c)(1); count 6 [Grace]), and
pimping a minor 16 years of age or older (§ 266h, subd. (b)(1);
count 11 [Grace]). The jury found true allegations that Aaliyah
and Grace were particularly vulnerable (counts 1, 6 & 11), and
Davenport induced others to commit the crime or occupied a
position of leadership or dominance over other participants
(counts 6 & 11).
The trial court sentenced Davenport on June 11, 2024. At
the hearing, Davenport admitted two prior strikes and that he
committed some of the crimes while out on bail. The trial court
sentenced Davenport to consecutive 25 years to life terms on
counts 1, 4, and 6, to the midterm of four years on count 8, and
two years for the out-on-bail enhancement, for a total prison term
of 75 years to life plus six years.
DISCUSSION
I. Admission of Aaliyah’s preliminary hearing testimony
Over a defense objection, the trial court found that Aaliyah
was unavailable to testify at trial and admitted her preliminary
hearing testimony, given on May 16, 2019. Davenport now

4 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.

13
contends that admitting Aaliyah’s preliminary hearing testimony
violated his constitutional rights to confront her. As we now
explain, we disagree with his contention.
A. Additional background
An amended complaint was filed on January 3, 2024. Trial
was set for March 29, 2024 but continued. Voir dire began on
April 8, 2024, and a jury was impaneled on April 16, 2024. The
trial court held two hearings about the admissibility of Aaliyah’s
preliminary hearing testimony, the first on April 16, 2024, and
the second due diligence hearing on May 14, 2024, during trial.
1. April 16, 2024 hearing
The first hearing considered a defense motion in limine to
exclude Aaliyah’s prior testimony and the prosecution’s motion to
admit it under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine and
Evidence Code section 1291. At the hearing, the prosecutor
argued that a text exchange between Aaliyah and Davenport
violated a criminal protective order because he encouraged
Aaliyah to avoid testifying. That is, Aaliyah texted Davenport
that she was going to visit her grandparents down south, and he
said, “ ‘Get yo ass out of here. Lol.’ ” “Imma tell them I’m trying
to go to trial.” Later, in June 2022, Davenport texted Aaliyah
that the “ ‘DA can’t do nothing without you.’ ” The prosecutor
further represented that she had learned a few weeks ago that
Aaliyah was receiving mail at her grandparents’ home in
Louisiana. At the prosecutor’s request, Department 100 issued

14
an order on April 2, 2024 under section 1334.5 Aaliyah did not
comply with the order.
In response, defense counsel disputed that Davenport
asked Aaliyah to lie or tried to dissuade her from testifying, and
argued that counsel did not have an adequate opportunity to
cross-examine Aaliyah at the preliminary hearing.
The trial court declined to find that the forfeiture by
wrongdoing doctrine applied, but found that Aaliyah “doesn’t
want to be found,” so her prior testimony was admissible because
she was unavailable.
2. May 14, 2024 due diligence hearing
At this due diligence hearing held during trial, the
prosecutor’s text exchanges with Aaliyah were introduced.
On June 27, 2023 (almost a year before trial began),
Aaliyah texted the prosecutor that she did not “want to move
forward with the case. I’m not a victim and he’s not ‘tampering’
with me, I contact him on my OWN and anything that I do with
Tyrell is MY CHOICE. What I told you and the court was not
100% true and whether you or the judge believe me or not, I
know, Tyrell know and God know what really was going on and
it’s not what you guys are trying to make it. I don’t mind telling
my truth now, and I don’t mind facing any consequences that
may come with it, but if it means being free from the lies I told
them I will do so. I hope you that you will understand along with
the court.”
The prosecutor told Aaliyah that the best way to “set the
record straight” was to speak for herself in court. The prosecutor

5 Section 1334 et seq. provides for the attendance of
witnesses outside the state.

15
told her there was a court hearing on July 6, 2023, gave her the
address, and asked if she needed transportation. Aaliyah
responded that she would show up, but “I want to know what the
outcome will be for ME in particular when I say what I need to.”
She added that she wanted the truth, because “if me taking this
chance to even be present will not change anything I won’t waste
my time and will let it go to trial and keep talking to Tyrell and
stay on his side, and will just cut contact here.” Aaliyah said she
had her own transport, and would talk it over with her husband
and family. The prosecutor asked Aaliyah to get back to her by
Friday, June 30, 2023 and reminded Aaliyah that the truth was
all anyone wanted and Aaliyah was not in trouble. Aaliyah
responded with a heart emoji. When the prosecutor did not hear
from Aaliyah by July 6, 2023, the prosecutor texted her, asking if
she would be in court the next morning. Aaliyah did not reply
and did not come to court.
Officer Sorina Thomas testified that she started searching
for Aaliyah on December 17, 2023. The prosecutor gave the
officer Aaliyah’s previous and last known addresses and a phone
number that the prosecutor had recently used to contact Aaliyah.
The officer also searched for advertisements, thinking Aaliyah
might still be working.
Officer Thomas surveilled Aaliyah’s grandparents’ home
twice but never saw Aaliyah. She knocked on the door but there
was no response, and she tried to speak to neighbors. The officer
also twice surveilled an address in Los Angeles listed on a
booking record for Aaliyah but did not see her. The mailbox
contained documents not addressed to Aaliyah.
On January 3, 2024, the officer called two phone numbers
associated with Aaliyah but they were no longer in use.

16
 On March 1, 2024, the prosecutor asked the officer to
resume searching for Aaliyah. The officer found ads featuring
Aaliyah but did not try to contact her using them, believing that
doing so might harm Aaliyah. On March 5, 2024, the officer
received credible information that Aaliyah was receiving mail at
a location in Louisiana. The prosecutor then told the officers that
she would start the process of doing a long-arm out-of-state
subpoena for Aaliyah.
On April 19, 2024, the court assistant told the prosecutor
that Aaliyah was on the phone, saying she wanted to come.
When the prosecutor got on the line, she spoke briefly to Aaliyah,
who said she was “findable,” but when the prosecutor asked
Aaliyah where she was, the call dropped or Aaliyah hung up.
The prosecutor tried to call Aaliyah back. The prosecutor then
texted Aaliyah, asking her to come to court and to return the
prosecutor’s call. The prosecutor asked Aaliyah to be at court for
Davenport’s trial on April 22, 2024, gave the time and location,
and offered transportation. Aaliyah texted, “I’m not coming to
court for you. I’m coming for Tyrell only. I’m changing my
number. Please leave me alone. I only wanted the clerk and the
judge to know you didn’t, in fact, try to get contact with me or
find me because I’ve been in Los Angeles County. Also he doesn’t
go back to court until Tuesday, so why would I show up when he
isn’t there. I can afford my own transportation, so I will show up
when my presence is needed. Thanks. Have a better day.” The
prosecutor texted back, asking Aaliyah to confirm she would be in
court on April 23, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. Aaliyah responded, “Ha Ha.”
When the prosector asked if that meant Aaliyah was not coming,
the prosecutor’s text would not go through, leading her to believe
that Aaliyah was blocking her number. When the prosecutor

17
asked the officer to call Aaliyah, it rang twice and “then it
sounded like it was an advertisement.”
On April 21, 2024, the prosecutor gave Officer Thomas a
phone number for Aaliyah that the prosecutor had just received a
couple of days earlier. The phone was disconnected, and the
officer stopped searching for Aaliyah, even though the officer
found an ad offering her services in Moreno Valley. Aaliyah was
posting ads as recently as the day before the hearing.
The trial court found that the “People did a lot” to search
for Aaliyah, although it was possible they could have done other
things. The trial court was unpersuaded that the prosecution
was not diligent because it did not look for Aaliyah in Moreno
Valley, observing that merely because that was one of her spots
did not mean she was there. It was clear to the trial court that
Aaliyah remained loyal to Davenport, and that if he wanted her
there, she would come. The trial court found Aaliyah unavailable
and admitted her preliminary hearing testimony.
B. Aaliyah was unavailable to testify at trial
The confrontation clauses in our federal and state
Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to
confront the prosecution’s witnesses. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.;
Cal. Const., art. 1, § 15.) The confrontation right seeks to ensure
a defendant is able to personally examine a witness to test the
witness’s recollection and to compel the witness to face the jury
so that it may judge the witness’s demeanor and manner in
which the testimony was given. (People v. Herrera (2010) 49
Cal.4th 613, 620–621 (Herrera).)
The confrontation right, however, is not absolute. (Herrera,
supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 621.) If a witness unavailable at trial
gave testimony at a prior judicial proceeding against the same

18
defendant and was subject to cross-examination, that prior
testimony is admissible. (Ibid.) Evidence Code section 1291,
subdivision (a)(2), codifies this exception. It provides that former
testimony is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the
declarant is unavailable as a witness, and the party against
whom the former testimony is offered was a party to the
proceeding in which the testimony was given and had the right
and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an interest
and motive similar to that which the party has at the hearing.
(Evid. Code, § 1291, subd. (a)(2).)
A witness is unavailable if the prosecution “has exercised
reasonable diligence but has been unable to procure [the
witness’s] attendance by the court’s process.” (Evid. Code, § 240,
subd. (a)(5).) Due diligence lacks precise definition but it
“ ‘ “ ‘connotes persevering application, untiring efforts in good
earnest, [and] efforts of a substantial character.’ ” ’ [Citation.]
We evaluate whether the prosecution timely searched for the
unavailable witness, whether the prosecution ‘competently
explored’ leads on the witness’s location, and the overall import of
the unavailable witness’s testimony.” (People v. Wilson (2021) 11
Cal.5th 259, 291 (Wilson).) “A witness who is absent from a trial
is not ‘unavailable’ in the constitutional sense unless the
prosecution has made a ‘good faith effort’ to obtain the witness’s
presence at the trial.” (Herrera, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 622.) The
law, however, does not require the doing of a futile act. (Ibid.)
We review de novo the trial court’s unavailability
determination but defer to its determination of historical facts
supported by substantial evidence. (Wilson, supra, 11 Cal.5th at
p. 291.)

19
 Davenport first argues that there is no substantial evidence
the prosecution tried to procure Aaliyah’s trial attendance “by the
court’s process.” (Evid. Code, § 240, subd. (a)(5).) Not so. The
prosecutor sought Aaliyah’s attendance through the long-arm
statute, section 1334 et seq. Under that statute, a California
judge may issue a certificate to a judge of a court in the county of
the state in which a material witness is found. (§ 1334.3; see
generally People v. Cogswell (2010) 48 Cal.4th 467, 475.) If
various conditions are met, the receiving sister court will issue a
subpoena directing the witness to attend and testify in the court
where the prosecution is pending. (§ 1334.2; Cogswell, at p. 475.)
The prosecutor represented that Aaliyah was receiving
mail at her grandparents’ home in Louisiana, and Aaliyah had
told Davenport she was going down south. Based on that
information, the prosecutor asked the court to issue an order
under section 1334. The record contains a “Certification of Clerk
of Requesting County for Attendance of Witness Aaliyah [ ]
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 1334.” The
certification is dated April 2, 2024, just six days before voir dire
began and about two weeks before the jury was impaneled.
Notwithstanding that further verification of the Louisiana court’s
receipt of the order is not in the record, the certification is
nonetheless evidence that the prosecution used the court process
to obtain Aaliyah’s attendance at trial.
Second, Davenport argues that the prosecutor did not
exercise reasonable diligence to locate Aaliyah, characterizing the
effort to locate her as a merely knocking on two doors. This is
inaccurate. The evidence instead shows that the prosecution
began a timely search for Aaliyah in July 2023, nine months
before trial began. The search resumed in March 2024, a month

20
before trial began, and continued into trial, with the prosecutor
speaking via phone and text to Aaliyah on April 19, 2024. On
April 21, 2024, while trial was ongoing, Officer Thomas called
another phone number associated with Aaliyah, but it was
disconnected. Thus, the prosecution’s efforts to get Aaliyah to
attend trial spanned about nine months, continuing into trial.
(Compare People v. Avila (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 163, 167, 169
[due diligence not found where prosecution first tried to locate
witness at start of retrial].)
The evidence further establishes that the prosecution
competently explored leads about Aaliyah’s whereabouts.
Aaliyah apparently had no fixed address and used different
phone numbers.6 Still, Officer Thomas twice surveilled two
residences associated with Aaliyah, and the prosecution tried to
find Aaliyah at her grandparents’ home in Louisiana. On
multiple occasions, Aaliyah’s phones were disconnected or not
answered. Therefore, this was not a case involving a witness who
had fixed ties to a place or person or a reliable phone number.
Davenport also faults the prosecution for not taking other
steps to find Aaliyah, namely, calling numbers in ads featuring
Aaliyah that someone continued to post during trial or looking for
her in Moreno Valley, referenced in an ad. The prosecution,
however, was not required to take these steps. We will not
reverse a trial court’s unavailability finding simply because a
“ ‘defendant can conceive of some further step or avenue left
unexplored by the prosecution. Where the record reveals, . . .
that sustained and substantial good faith efforts were
undertaken, the defendant’s ability to suggest additional steps

6 Aaliyah had told officers that she became a sex worker
because she was unhoused and had nowhere to go.

21
(usually, as here, with the benefit of hindsight) does not
automatically render the prosecution’s efforts “unreasonable.”
[Citations.] The law requires only reasonable efforts, not
prescient perfection.’ ” (People v. Diaz (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 695,
706.) Officer Thomas did not take further steps based on
Aaliyah’s recent ads because she felt doing so might endanger
Aaliyah’s safety. Also, as the trial court observed, that Aaliyah’s
ad said she worked in Moreno Valley was not much of a lead,
given Moreno Valley’s size and that there was no evidence
Aaliyah was staying in that area. (See People v. Lawson (2020)
52 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1130 [reasonable steps to secure witness’s
testimony must be taken unless it’s obvious they would be
unavailing]; compare People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889,
903–904 [due diligence not found when prosecution went to home
where witness might be staying but failed to return when told
witness’s mother would be there the next day].)
Nor do we agree that the prosecution received a “massive
lead” on April 19, 2024 when Aaliyah called the court and said
she would come to court and was “findable.” But that is not all
Aaliyah said. She also texted the prosecutor that she was
changing her number and to leave her alone. When the
prosecutor asked Aaliyah to confirm she would come to court,
Aaliyah responded, “Ha Ha.” The prosecutor’s follow-up text did
not go through, suggesting that Aaliyah blocked the prosecutor’s
number. We therefore do not agree that the communications
between Aaliyah and the prosecutor show Aaliyah was findable,
wanted to be found, or would come to court. (See, e.g., People v.
Diaz, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 706 [“ ‘it is unclear what
effective and reasonable controls the People could impose upon a
witness who plans to leave the state or simply “disappear” ’ ”].)

22
 Finally, we consider the overall import of Aaliyah’s
testimony when considering whether the prosecution acted with
reasonable diligence and in good faith to locate her. (Wilson,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 291.) Undoubtably, her testimony was
important. And it may be, as Davenport suggests, that Aaliyah
had credibility issues that could have cast doubt on the
prosecution’s case. Nonetheless, Aaliyah’s testimony was not
akin to the unavailable witness’s testimony in People v. Louis
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 969, cited by Davenport. In that case, the
unavailable witness’s prior testimony was the sole evidence
identifying the defendant as the shooter in a murder case. (Id. at
p. 989.)
Here, in contrast, Aaliyah was not the sole source of
evidence supporting the counts pertaining to her. Law
enforcement officers testified that they saw Davenport drop
Aaliyah off on the blade and go to a lot where pimps commonly
waited. Aaliyah’s personal documents were in Davenport’s car.
Photographs and videos on Davenport’s cellphone identified him
as a pimp known as IBN. The photographs included ones of
Aaliyah that were used for Internet sex ads. Surveillance footage
from motels showed Davenport with Aaliyah, and the motels’
registration cards listed his car’s license plate number.
Therefore, the prosecution introduced other compelling evidence,
including Davenport’s own statements in videos and
photographs, to establish that he trafficked Aaliyah.7

7 Because we hold that Aaliyah was unavailable, we need not
address Davenport’s alternative argument about the applicability
of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine.

23
II. Admissibility of Aaliyah’s statements to law enforcement
Davenport next contends that the trial court’s admission of
Aaliyah’s statements to law enforcement violated Crawford v.
Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford). As we now explain,
no violation of Crawford occurred.
As an initial matter, the Attorney General argues that
Davenport forfeited this contention by failing to raise it below.
That is, the defense argued below that Aaliyah’s statements were
hearsay and it had no opportunity to cross-examine her about
them, but counsel did not expressly raise the confrontation
clause. Even if Davenport did not preserve the constitutional
objection, we may consider the issue’s merits because it affect’s
Davenport’s substantial rights.8 (§ 1259.)
Turning to the merits, Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 36, held
that the confrontation clause forbids the admission of testimonial
hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the
defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Testimonial statements include ones made during police
interrogations. (Id. at p. 68; People v. Cage (2007) 40 Cal.4th 965,
978.) In addition to demonstrating that the witness was
unavailable under the standards we discussed above, the
prosecution also must establish that the defendant had a
previous opportunity to cross-examine the witness, with an
interest and motive similar to the defendant’s interests and
motives at trial. (Evid. Code, § 1291, subd. (a)(2); Herrera, supra,
49 Cal.4th at p. 621.)

8 Because we address the merits of Davenport’s contention,
we do not address his alternative contention that his trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance by failing to object on
constitutional grounds.

24
 We have rejected Davenport’s argument that there was
insufficient evidence Aaliyah was unavailable.
We also reject that Davenport did not have an opportunity
at the preliminary hearing to cross-examine Aaliyah about her
statements to law enforcement. Where, as here, defendant had
an opportunity to cross-examine a witness at the time of the
witness’s prior testimony, that testimony is deemed sufficiently
reliable to satisfy the confrontation requirement, even if
subsequent circumstances bring into question the accuracy or the
completeness of the earlier testimony. (People v. Samayoa (1997)
15 Cal.4th 795, 851–852; People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310,
333 [motives at prior hearing and trial need not be identical, only
similar].) Davenport’s motives and interests at the preliminary
hearing and at trial were to impugn Aaliyah’s credibility and to
demonstrate that the prosecution could not prove its case.
Defense counsel thus elicited responses from Aaliyah that could
show Davenport did not traffic her, for example, Aaliyah agreed
that Davenport did not “physically force[ ]” her to stay with him;
she did not try to get away from him; and she wanted the tattoos.
Davenport thus had an opportunity to cross-examine Aaliyah.
Davenport, however, further disputes that he had the
opportunity to cross-examine Aaliyah specifically about her
December 16, 2018 statements, because the recordings were not
turned over until trial. However, the information Aaliyah gave in
her brief interviews on December 16, 2018, including identifying
her pimp as IBN, was repeated in her subsequent, lengthy
interview on December 19, 2018. In that interview, Aaliyah
identified her pimp as IBN and provided greater details about
her background and her relationship with Davenport. Davenport
does not identify any statement Aaliyah made on December 16,

25
2018 that she did not make on December 19, 2018 and that he did
not have an opportunity to cross-examine her about. Davenport
therefore had the opportunity to cross-examine Aaliyah about her
statements to law enforcement.
III. Cumulative error
Davenport contends he is entitled to reversal because of
cumulative error. “[A] series of trial errors, though
independently harmless, may in some circumstances rise by
accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error.” (People
v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844.) However, defendants are
entitled to fair trials, not perfect ones. (Ibid.) Here, we have
found no errors, harmless or otherwise. Therefore, there are no
trial errors to cumulate.

26
 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

ASHWORTH, J.*

We concur:

ADAMS, P. J.

HANASONO, J.

* Retired Judge of the El Dorado Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

27