People v. Roa
11 Cal. App. 5th 428
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Nickolas Roa was tried under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA) after a jury found he was an SVP and the trial court committed him indefinitely to DSH. He appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed.
- Roa refused interviews; the People’s and defense experts based opinions on documentary records (hospital, police, probation, prison, DA investigator reports) and actuarial tools (STATIC-99/2000).
- Prosecution experts diagnosed paraphilic disorders, sexual sadism, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse and testified those disorders made Roa likely to reoffend; they relied in part on district attorney investigator reports (1999) describing alleged uncharged incidents and ex‑wife statements.
- The trial court excluded the investigator reports themselves as hearsay but allowed experts to rely on them and to relate their contents to the jury; some documentary evidence (prelim/transcripts, probation reports, prison packet, CLETS printout) was admitted under statutory exceptions (Welf. & Inst. Code §6600(a)(3); Pen. Code §969b).
- On appeal Roa argued (1) Sanchez barred experts from reciting case‑specific hearsay not independently proven; (2) experts improperly related unadmitted hearsay (investigator reports, hospital records) that prejudiced the jury; (3) certain documents should have been redacted or excluded; (4) due process/confrontation concerns.
- The court concluded experts could repeat case‑specific facts that were independently proved by admissible documentary exceptions, but erred by admitting expert testimony recounting unproven case‑specific hearsay (investigator reports and hospital records); that error was prejudicial and required reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether experts may recount case‑specific facts drawn from hearsay | Experts may rely on and state the facts underlying qualifying convictions when those facts are independently proven by admissible documentary evidence | Experts cannot relate case‑specific out‑of‑court statements treated as true unless independently proven or excepted | Permitted if facts are established by admissible documentary evidence (e.g., §6600(a)(3), §969b); otherwise impermissible under Sanchez |
| Admissibility of DA investigator reports relied on by experts | Experts may rely on inadmissible hearsay in forming opinions (Evid. Code §801) and may state generally they relied on it | Experts cannot recount the reports’ case‑specific allegations to the jury absent independent proof or hearsay exception; doing so is Sanchez‑barred hearsay | Experts may rely on the reports to form opinions but may not relate their case‑specific contents to the jury because the reports were not admitted and contained unproven allegations; admitting such testimony was error |
| Admissibility of state hospital/medical records and experts’ repetition of their contents | Some hospital/custody documents can be admitted under §6600(a)(3); experts may relate facts supported by those documents | Experts cannot testify to details from hospital records that were not admitted or covered by an exception | Trial court erred by permitting experts to relate contents of hospital/medical records that were not admitted; that testimony was inadmissible hearsay |
| Prejudice and reversal standard | Any hearsay error was harmless given other strong evidence of danger | The excluded hearsay was material to diagnoses and risk assessments and likely affected the verdict | Errors were prejudicial under People v. Watson and required reversal of the commitment judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (limits expert testimony: experts may not relate case‑specific out‑of‑court statements as true unless independently proven or covered by hearsay exception)
- People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (Welf. & Inst. Code §6600(a)(3) permits multiple‑level hearsay documentary evidence to prove prior qualifying offenses)
- People v. Burroughs, 6 Cal.App.5th 378 (applied Sanchez in SVP context; experts may relate facts that were independently proven but not unproven, lurid hearsay)
- People v. Dean, 174 Cal.App.4th 186 (limits on expert testimony about facts from nonadmitted hospital/custody records)
- People v. Landau, 246 Cal.App.4th 850 (expert testimony recounting nonadmitted hospital records prejudicial; reversal required)
- People v. Carlin, 150 Cal.App.4th 322 (use of investigator reports to prove qualifying offense raises reliability/due process concerns)
- People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 106 (official records hearsay exception supports admission of CLETS/official criminal history)