11 Cal. App. 5th 428
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Nickolas Roa, previously committed as an SVP, was the subject of a new SVPA petition; after a jury trial the court ordered indefinite commitment to a state hospital.
- Roa refused interviews; the People’s and defense experts based opinions on records (hospital, police, probation, prison) and two 1999 district attorney investigator reports not themselves admitted into evidence.
- People’s experts diagnosed paraphilia with nonconsenting others, sexual sadism, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse; they relied in part on case-specific statements in the DA investigator reports (e.g., alleged 1967 attempted rape of "Cecilia," 1974 incident, and abuse of ex-wife).
- Defense experts generally disputed current paraphilic/sadistic disorders or downplayed risk (citing age, actuarial scores), though one later adopted a sadism diagnosis after reviewing the 1999 reports.
- Roa moved to exclude experts from relating case-specific hearsay; trial court allowed experts to rely on and testify about the "general substance" of documents but excluded the reports themselves; jury found Roa an SVP. The Court of Appeal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether experts may testify to case-specific out-of-court statements in forming opinions when those statements are not independently admissible | Experts may rely on background and documentary sources; §6600(a)(3) permits admission of documents proving qualifying offenses and experts may relate those facts | Sanchez prohibits experts from relating case-specific hearsay as true unless independently proven or covered by an exception; DA investigator reports and other records were not admitted | Experts may rely on inadmissible hearsay to form opinions, but may not relate case-specific hearsay statements as true unless independently proven or within an exception; admission of such testimony here was error and prejudicial |
| Admissibility of 1999 district attorney investigator reports (and experts testifying to their contents) | Experts can consider such reports under Evid. Code §801 and disclose generally that they relied on hearsay | Investigator reports contain case-specific statements decades after events; their content was not admitted and thus experts cannot present them as true | Experts may rely on such reports to form opinions, but may not relate the reports' case-specific statements as true to the jury; here experts did so and that was reversible error |
| Admission of state hospital and medical records via experts' testimony when records were not admitted | Experts can base opinions on records even if not admitted; some records fall under SVPA documentary exception | Experts testified to details from records not admitted under any hearsay exception | Experts' testimony recounting inadmissible hospital/medical record content was error; People conceded inadmissibility and Court found the error prejudicial |
| Whether errors were prejudicial and required reversal | Any hearsay testimony was harmless given other evidence (predicate convictions, actuarial scores, other admissible materials) | The inadmissible case-specific hearsay materially affected diagnoses (sadism, paraphilia, conduct disorder) and risk assessments; prejudice is likely | The admission of extensive inadmissible hearsay was prejudicial under People v. Watson and required reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. People, 63 Cal.4th 665 (California 2016) (expert may not relate case-specific out-of-court statements as true unless independently proven or within an exception)
- People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (California 2001) (§6600(a)(3) allows multiple-level hearsay in SVPA proceedings to prove details of predicate offenses)
- People v. Burroughs, 6 Cal.App.5th 378 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (applying Sanchez in SVP context; experts may relate facts proven by admissible documents but not unrelated uncharged conduct)
- People v. Landau, 214 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (expert testimony repeating inadmissible hospital-record facts was prejudicial)
- People v. Dean, 174 Cal.App.4th 186 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (experts should not disclose detailed case-specific hearsay from unadmitted custody records)
- People v. Carlin, 150 Cal.App.4th 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (use of investigator reports to prove qualifying offense may violate due process when reliability is lacking)
- People v. Therrian, 113 Cal.App.4th 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (expert testimony admissible on likelihood of reoffending; STATIC-99 explained)
- People v. Roberge, 29 Cal.4th 979 (California 2003) (defines "likely to engage in sexually violent criminal behavior" as a "serious and well-founded risk")
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (California 1956) (standard for reversible prejudice in nonconstitutional errors)