People v. Sanchez
374 P.3d 320, 63 Cal. 4th 665, 204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 102 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a prosecution expert relates case-specific, out-of-court statements as true to support their opinion, the statements are inadmissible hearsay under state law. If those statements are also testimonial, their admission violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Facts:
- On August 11, 2007, Marcos Arturo Sanchez was standing next to his cousin, a known Delhi member, when his cousin was shot.
- On December 30, 2007, Sanchez was with Mike Safinas, a documented Delhi member, when Safinas was shot.
- On December 4, 2009, an officer contacted Sanchez in the company of documented Delhi member John Gomez, an interaction recorded on a Field Identification (FI) card.
- On December 9, 2009, Sanchez was arrested in a garage with two Delhi members; inside, police found a surveillance camera, narcotics, and a firearm.
- On June 14, 2011, Sanchez received a Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) notice, during which he allegedly told the officer he "kicked it with guys from Delhi" for four years.
- On October 16, 2011, two police officers made eye contact with Sanchez, who then reached into an electrical box before running into an apartment.
- The officers apprehended Sanchez inside the apartment, and subsequently found a loaded gun and 14 bindles of heroin and four baggies of methamphetamine on a tarp below the bathroom window.
Procedural Posture:
- Marcos Arturo Sanchez was charged in a California trial court with several felonies, accompanied by street gang enhancements.
- A jury convicted Sanchez on all counts and found the gang enhancement allegations to be true.
- Sanchez appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction for active gang participation based on other precedent but affirmed the judgment in all other respects, including the gang enhancements.
- The California Supreme Court granted Sanchez's petition for review to address the expert testimony issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a gang expert's testimony relating case-specific, out-of-court statements from police reports and a STEP notice as facts to support their opinion violate state hearsay rules and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause when the defendant cannot cross-examine the declarants?
Opinions:
Majority - Corrigan, J.
Yes, the expert's testimony relating case-specific, out-of-court statements as facts violates state hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause. When an expert treats case-specific out-of-court statements as true and relates them to the jury as the basis for an opinion, those statements are necessarily offered for their truth and constitute hearsay. The court rejected the long-standing legal fiction that such basis testimony is not offered for its truth, disapproving prior California precedent like People v. Gardeley. Such hearsay must be admitted through an applicable exception or by independent competent evidence. Furthermore, if the hearsay is 'testimonial'—meaning its primary purpose, viewed objectively, is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution—its admission violates the Confrontation Clause. The court determined that the statements from the police reports, compiled during investigations of completed crimes, and from the STEP notice, which was sworn by an officer to memorialize facts for future use, were testimonial. Because the declarants of these statements were not subject to cross-examination, their admission through the expert's testimony was a constitutional error that was not harmless.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the rules for expert testimony in California criminal law, particularly in gang-related cases. It dismantles the 'not-for-the-truth' rationale that previously allowed experts to relay case-specific hearsay from police reports and other documents to a jury. By requiring that such facts be independently proven through admissible evidence, the ruling places a greater burden on prosecutors to call the percipient witnesses (e.g., the officers who wrote the reports) to testify directly. This holding strengthens defendants' Sixth Amendment confrontation rights and forces a clear distinction between an expert's permissible background testimony and impermissible recitation of case-specific hearsay.
