People v. Jeffrey G., A149067

Defendant Jeffrey G., committed to DSH after a 1990 NGI finding, petitioned in 2015 for transfer to CONREP (conditional release); a bench trial denied the petition and he appealed.
At the hearing defendant and his psychologist testified favorably about his stability, sobriety commitment, medication compliance, and treatment attendance; prosecution called three experts who relied heavily on hearsay to oppose release.
Under the law at the time of the hearing, experts could recount case-specific hearsay as a basis for opinion; two weeks later the California Supreme Court decided People v. Sanchez, restricting experts from repeating case-specific hearsay unless independently admitted or otherwise established.
Many prosecution-expert statements were supported by defendant’s own testimony, but several characterizations (e.g., inconsistent treatment attendance, ‘‘lengthy’’ rule-violation history, decompensation in 2013, hostile interpersonal style) lacked independent support in the record.
The trial court found the petition a close call and relied on three primary factors to deny release: prior CONREP failures, recent rule violations, and allegedly spotty treatment attendance.
Appellate court held Sanchez applies retroactively, excused trial counsel’s failure to object (futility), found several expert statements inadmissible under Sanchez, and concluded prejudice was reasonably probable; ordered reversal and a new hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sanchez applies to hearings pending on appeal	Sanchez was not a change requiring retroactive application	Sanchez is a new evidentiary rule that must apply retroactively to pending cases	Sanchez applies retroactively to this appeal
Whether defendant forfeited the Sanchez claim by not objecting at trial	Trial counsel should have objected or asked for foundation; failure forfeits claim	Objections would have been futile under then-prevailing law; counsel could not anticipate Sanchez	No forfeiture; failure to object excused because objection would have been futile
Whether prosecution experts’ case-specific hearsay was independently supported in the record	Much of experts’ testimony was based on admissible sources or was supported by defendant’s own testimony	Many expert characterizations lacked independent competent evidence and therefore are barred by Sanchez	Some expert testimony was unsupported and thus inadmissible under Sanchez
Whether the admission of unsupported expert hearsay was prejudicial	The record contains enough other adverse evidence to uphold denial	Unsupported hearsay materially influenced the close decision; reversal is reasonably probable absent it	Prejudicial: reversal and remand for a new hearing (Watson standard)

People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (experts may not relate case-specific out-of-court statements as true unless independently proven or admissible under an exception)
People v. Montiel, 5 Cal.4th 877 (1993) (earlier permissive approach to expert testimony about case-specific facts)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (prejudice standard: reversal if reasonably probable a more favorable result would have occurred absent error)
People v. Banks, 59 Cal.4th 1113 (2014) (excusing failure to raise claims that could not reasonably have been anticipated because they represented a dramatic legal change)
People v. Song, 124 Cal.App.4th 973 (2004) (new judicial rules generally apply retroactively to cases pending on appeal)