People v. Malik, C080291

Defendant Adam Akhtar Malik stabbed a victim and threatened to kill him; charged with attempted murder (acquitted), assault with a deadly weapon (convicted), and making a criminal threat (convicted). Sentence: seven years prison.
Defense asserted PTSD from military service and a 2012 shooting incident; Dr. Linda Barnard testified as defense PTSD expert after reviewing police/sheriff reports and interviews.
On cross-examination the prosecutor questioned Dr. Barnard about the contents of five prior police reports (2001–2012) and asked whether she relied on those facts in forming her PTSD opinion; defense objected and moved for mistrial (denied).
After Sanchez (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665) was decided, the parties briefed whether the cross-examination elicited case‑specific testimonial hearsay and violated confrontation rights.
The trial court instructed the jury that statements relied on by the expert could be considered only to evaluate the expert’s opinion, not as proof of their truth; jurors convicted on assault and criminal threats but acquitted of attempted murder.
The Court of Appeal held the cross‑examination admitting case‑specific testimonial hearsay violated the Confrontation Clause, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; it also rejected defendant’s Penal Code §654 claim and affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Malik)	Held
Whether prosecutor’s cross‑examination of defense PTSD expert about case‑specific police reports admitted testimonial hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause	Cross‑examination of an expert about materials she reviewed is proper impeachment and testing of the expert’s opinion under Evidence Code §721 and trial court discretion	Prosecutor elicited case‑specific, testimonial hearsay through the expert and thus violated defendant’s confrontation and due process rights per People v. Sanchez	Admission of the challenged testimonial hearsay through cross‑examination violated confrontation rights, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether sentencing on both assault and criminal threat violated Penal Code §654 (multiple punishment for same act/objective)	The assault and threat involved separate objectives (inflicting physical injury vs. causing mental terror), supporting separate punishments	The threat and assault arose from the same intent and objective, so punishment should have been stayed on one count under §654	Substantial evidence supported distinct objectives; §654 did not bar sentencing on both counts

People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (rejected treating case‑specific out‑of‑court statements as non‑hearsay when used to support expert opinion; testimonial statements require confrontation safeguards)
People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (discussed expert reliance on hearsay as basis evidence prior to Sanchez)
People v. Capistrano, 59 Cal.4th 830 (harmless‑beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard for Confrontation Clause errors)
People v. Corpening, 2 Cal.5th 307 (section 654: single physical act vs. course of conduct analysis)
Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 (section 654 principle: multiple offenses incident to one objective treated as single act)