People v. Espinoza

Summary

Jose Espinoza was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in a jail facility, after he tried to smuggle drugs in a film canister inside his body. Regina Davidson, a criminalist, examined the pills and used Ident-A-Drug (Website), an internet drug reference work, to identify the pills. Espinoza offered no testimony to refute the evidence against him, but he now appeals his conviction, arguing that Davidson's expert opinion testimony was testimonial hearsay and inadmissible.

"A defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one. Here he had a fair trial."
-Kenneth R. Yegan

Affirmed. An exception to the hearsay rule is codified in Evidence Code Section 1340. It provides: "[E]vidence of a statement, other than an opinion, contained in a...directory, register, or other published compilation is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the compilation is generally used and relied upon as accurate in the course of a business as defined in Evidence Code Section 1270." People v. Mooring. In Mooring, the court held that "the expert testimony fell within the "'published compilation'" exception to the hearsay rule, under Section 1340, and thus concluded that the Ident-A-Drug website was not testimonial because it contains generic data about pharmaceutical pills." Here, Davidson testified that the website is an authoritative reference, commonly used by criminalists. This court stressed common sense guiding decisions in criminal cases, noting that "what cannot be disputed is that appellant, a recidivist, attempted to smuggle drugs into the county jail. The manner in which the crime was committed is persuasive evidence from which the jury could draw the inference that these pills were the real thing."

— Rebecca Hirsch