25 Cal. App. 5th 474
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- The People filed an SVP commitment petition against David Yates; a jury found him a sexually violent predator and he was committed.
- The prosecution presented two psychologist experts who based opinions on interviews, risk instruments, and voluminous criminal, juvenile, and California State Hospital records.
- Neither the hospital/criminal records nor many of the case‑specific facts the experts recited were admitted into evidence or shown to satisfy a hearsay exception at trial.
- Defense counsel filed a pretrial Sanchez motion to limit experts from relating inadmissible case‑specific hearsay, but did not thereafter object to most expert testimony at trial.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the experts repeatedly related inadmissible case‑specific hearsay (not independently proven or covered by an exception), that the error was prejudicial, counsel had no satisfactory tactical explanation for failing to object, and reversed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether experts may relate as true case‑specific facts from out‑of‑court documents not admitted or shown to fall under a hearsay exception | Yates: Sanchez prohibits experts from testifying to case‑specific hearsay unless documents are admitted or an exception applies | People: Sanchez permits experts to rely on hearsay; admission of experts’ testimony was proper because records would be admissible under Welf. & Inst. Code §6600(a)(3) or business/official records exceptions | Held: Sanchez bars experts from relating case‑specific hearsay as true unless the underlying documents are admitted or fall within a hearsay exception; experts’ testimony here was inadmissible because no foundation was laid and documents were not admitted. |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object forfeited the claim or constituted ineffective assistance | Yates: Trial counsel’s failure to object to repeated Sanchez violations was deficient and prejudicial | People: Failure to object forfeits appellate review | Held: Although claim could be forfeited, counsel’s failure lacked any conceivable tactical justification; counsel’s omissions were deficient and prejudicial, warranting reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (expert may rely on background hearsay generally but may not relate case‑specific hearsay as true unless admissible)
- People v. Burroughs, 6 Cal.App.5th 378 (2016) (expert reliance on hospital records permissible, but experts may not testify to contents of unadmitted hearsay documents)
- People v. Roa, 11 Cal.App.5th 428 (2017) (Sanchez applies in SVP proceedings; experts may not recount unadmitted case‑specific hearsay)
- People v. Otto, 26 Cal.4th 200 (2001) (Welf. & Inst. Code §6600(a)(3) authorizes documentary hearsay to prove predicate offense details)
- People v. Stevens, 62 Cal.4th 325 (2015) (statutory hearsay exception for §6600(a)(3) is limited to documentary evidence, not expert testimony)
- Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1138 (1999) (SVP requires current diagnosed mental disorder and link to future dangerousness)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (standard for assessing whether evidentiary error was prejudicial)