People v. Lin
B278102M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Michael Lin pleaded nolo contendere to assault with a deadly weapon (bow and arrow) and received a three-year term.
- The Board of Parole Hearings found Lin an MDO under Penal Code § 2962 and conditioned parole on involuntary treatment; Lin petitioned under § 2966(b) and waived a jury trial.
- Forensic psychologist Dr. Brandi Mathews testified that Lin suffers from schizophrenia, was symptomatic at the time of the offense, posed a substantial danger without treatment, and was not in remission. Her opinion relied largely on medical/prison records, prior MDO evaluations, and consultations — not on a complete personal evaluation because Lin terminated interviews early.
- The prosecutor did not admit Lin’s medical, prison, or prior MDO records into evidence; Mathews’s testimony was the only case‑specific evidence applying § 2962 to Lin.
- The trial court found the MDO criteria proven beyond a reasonable doubt and committed Lin to state hospital treatment; Lin appealed, arguing his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to impermissible case‑specific hearsay in the expert testimony under People v. Sanchez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an expert may relate case‑specific hearsay facts to prove MDO criteria | Expert relied on records and consultations permissible to form opinion; testimony supported MDO finding | Sanchez bars experts from relating unproven case‑specific hearsay as true; Mathews’ opinion rested on inadmissible case‑specific hearsay not independently proven | Sanchez applies; Mathews improperly relied on unproven case‑specific hearsay, so there was no competent evidence to establish § 2962 requirements; reversal granted |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance | No objection may have been tactical (used testimony favorable to defense; avoiding Lin testifying) | Counsel had no rational tactical reason to permit inadmissible case‑specific hearsay to stand | Although tactical choices get deference, the foundational defect (no independent evidence) defeats the People’s case; ineffective‑assistance argument unnecessary to resolve because Sanchez error required reversal |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove § 2962 when expert didn’t personally evaluate defendant | Expert can rely on hearsay to form opinion but must not state case‑specific hearsay as true unless independently proven | The only evidence tying disorder to dangerousness was the expert’s case‑specific recitals, which were not independently admitted | Insufficient competent evidence; expert’s reliance on unproven case‑specific hearsay violated Sanchez and cannot sustain commitment |
| Remedy / next steps | Uphold commitment or remand for new proceeding | Reverse order; remand for proceedings consistent with Sanchez and related Supreme Court guidance | Order reversed; case remanded for proceedings that comply with Sanchez and applicable waiver law (Sivonxxay, Blackburn) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (expert may not present case‑specific hearsay as true; may rely on hearsay to form opinion but must state sources generally)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Sivonxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (waiver of jury trial in similar contexts; procedural consequences on remand)
- People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (jury waiver and related procedural guidance)
- People v. Mickel, 2 Cal.5th 181 (standard and deference in ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal)