65 Cal.App.5th 1131
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Gabriel Presley, a former inmate with prior convictions for rape and various sex offenses, was the subject of an SVPA commitment petition as his 2010 prison term ended.
- Presley filed a pretrial Sanchez motion seeking to exclude case‑specific hearsay relied on by experts; the court acknowledged Sanchez and treated the objection as a standing objection in a court (bench) trial.
- At the bench trial the People presented three experts who diagnosed Presley with schizophrenia and an unspecified paraphilic disorder and concluded he was likely to engage in sexually violent predatory behavior; Presley presented one expert who disputed the paraphilic diagnosis but nevertheless agreed Presley was high risk.
- Experts based opinions on interviews, prison and hospital records, and prior evaluators’ reports; Presley argued the People’s experts relied on inadmissible case‑specific hearsay (post‑Sanchez) to support findings about his sexual arousal and motivations.
- The trial court found Presley an SVP beyond a reasonable doubt, explaining it considered expert opinions, found the defense expert an outlier, and did not rely on the particular case‑specific hearsay challenged on appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the record does not overcome the presumption the trial court ignored inadmissible material and that the experts’ opinions rested on multiple permissible sources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Presley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony relied on inadmissible case‑specific hearsay in violation of People v. Sanchez | Expert testimony was proper to the extent it relied on permissible sources (records, interviews) and any error was harmless | Prosecuting experts improperly recited case‑specific out‑of‑court statements as true (e.g., sexual arousal from forcing sex), violating Sanchez | Court held trial judge did not abuse discretion; presumption judge disregarded inadmissible hearsay and experts relied on multiple permissible sources |
| Whether any admission of case‑specific hearsay requires reversal despite bench trial safeguards | Trial court could and did screen inadmissible material; expert opinions supported by independent records/interviews | Admission of such statements infected the judgment and violated due process | Court affirmed: presumption of proper judicial performance not overcome; no showing the inadmissible material actually influenced decision |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (experts may not relate case‑specific out‑of‑court statements as true; limits on expert basis testimony)
- Hayward v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.App.5th 10 (presumption that judge disregards inadmissible evidence; judicial duty properly performed)
- People v. Roa, 11 Cal.App.5th 428 (application of Sanchez to expert testimony; distinguishing permissible background/expert reliance)
- People v. Bona, 15 Cal.App.5th 511 (expert may rely on interviews and records; Sanchez challenge rejected where opinion supported by such sources)
- Jones v. Whisenand, 8 Cal.App.5th 543 (overview of SVPA standard and civil commitment framework)