## Facts

- Police observed Marcos Arturo Sanchez near an apartment building; after eye contact, he reached into an electrical box and ran upstairs into an apartment while holding his waistband.
- Officers entered and apprehended Sanchez inside; a resident described him as a stranger who ran through the residence into a bathroom.
- A loaded handgun and a bag containing heroin and methamphetamine were found on a tarp below the bathroom window; the tarp’s owner denied ownership and permission to place items there.
- Sanchez was convicted of firearm and drug offenses and, based on gang evidence, active gang participation and a gang enhancement.
- The prosecution’s gang proof relied heavily on a police detective testifying as a gang expert who had not met Sanchez and whose opinions were based on police reports, FI cards, and a retained STEP notice.
- The expert recounted as factual, case-specific assertions from those materials (including statements attributed to Sanchez and descriptions of prior contacts and incidents) without calling the declarants who created or made the statements.

## Issues

1. Under California evidence law, may an expert relate case-specific hearsay to the jury as true when explaining the basis for an opinion under Evidence Code sections 801 and 802?
2. Does an expert’s disclosure of testimonial, case-specific hearsay to the jury violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause absent unavailability and a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant?
3. If error occurred, was it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the gang enhancement findings?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California held that an expert may rely on hearsay in forming an opinion, but generally may not present case-specific hearsay to the jury as true unless independently proven by competent evidence or admitted under a hearsay exception.
- The court held that when an expert conveys testimonial, case-specific hearsay as true, the expert functions as a conduit for testimonial statements, violating the Confrontation Clause absent unavailability and prior cross-examination (or forfeiture).
- The court concluded the gang expert’s recitation of statements from police reports and the retained STEP notice included inadmissible hearsay and at least some testimonial hearsay.
- The court reversed the gang enhancement findings as not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and remanded; the underlying firearm and drug convictions were left intact.

## Legal Principles

- Experts may base opinions on inadmissible matter reasonably relied upon in the field, but that allowance does not permit presenting case-specific hearsay to the jury for its truth.
- “Background” hearsay about general gang culture and activities is distinct from “case-specific facts” about the events and participants in the charged case; case-specific out-of-court assertions offered as true are hearsay.
- Evidence Code sections 801 and 802 do not authorize “publishing” case-specific hearsay to the jury under a purported nonhearsay “basis” rationale when the jury must accept the statements as true to evaluate the opinion.
- Multiple hearsay remains inadmissible unless each level is covered by an exception.
- Under Crawford, testimonial hearsay cannot be introduced through an expert’s basis testimony when offered as true unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination (or the right was forfeited).
- Police reports and similar records prepared to memorialize facts of past criminal activity for possible prosecution are commonly testimonial; an expert’s repetition of their contents as true can trigger confrontation limits.

## Conclusion

The court sharply limited experts’ ability to convey case-specific hearsay to juries, holding that such statements are inadmissible for their truth absent independent proof or a hearsay exception, and that testimonial case-specific basis statements presented as true violate the Confrontation Clause; because the gang findings depended on this improper material, the gang enhancements were reversed while the remaining convictions stood.


People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal. 4th 665 (Cal. 2016)