Lower Court
Monterey County Superior CourtTrial court abandoned its gatekeeping responsibility by allowing firearms expert to testify to conclusions not supported by the material on which he relied.
Court
California Courts of Appeal 6DCACite as
2021 DJDAR 414Published
Jan. 13, 2021Filing Date
Jan. 11, 2021Opinion Type
ModificationDisposition Type
Reversed and RemandedTHE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRAD AZCONA,
Defendant and Appellant.
No. H045676
(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS151642A)
California Courts of Appeal
Sixth Appellate District
Filed January 11, 2021
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 10, 2020, be modified as follows:
On page 10, the first full paragraph is deleted and replaced with the following:
"An expert is permitted to relate hearsay statements regarding general background information that contributes to his or her opinion, but not testimonial hearsay statements that present case specific facts. (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 675. See Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36; Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305.) The latter is what occurred here, when the expert told the jury that another examiner had indicated approval of and agreement with the expert's conclusions in this case. The prosecution was in effect able to introduce the opinion of a second expert without exposing that witness to cross-examination, depriving defendant of his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The trial court erred by allowing the hearsay statements regarding supervisor approval."
There is no change in the judgment.
GREENWOOD, P.J.
GROVER, J.
DANNER, J.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424