People v. Jeffrey G.

by
Defendant was committed to the Department of State Hospitals in 1990 after he was found not guilty of a violent crime by reason of insanity, He has been confined for most of the subsequent time. In 2015, he sought transfer to a conditional release program. At a hearing, defendant and a psychologist who had examined him testified regarding his likelihood of success in the program. The prosecution presented the testimony of three expert witnesses to contest his readiness. Under then-applicable law, an expert witness was permitted to testify with respect to the hearsay evidence on which the expert based his opinion, regardless of whether there was competent evidence to support that testimony. The trial court denied defendant’s petition. The California Supreme Court subsequently issued People v. Sanchez, which substantially limited expert testimony with respect to case-specific hearsay evidence. Had the hearing been conducted under Sanchez, at least some of the prosecution’s experts' testimony would have been excluded. The court of appeal reversed. Defendant’s testimony and his expert's testimony of provided independent evidence to support some of the otherwise-hearsay testimony, but a significant portion of the testimony was not anticipated by defendant’s evidence. The trial court found defendant’s petition to present a close case, so it is reasonably probable that the court would have granted defendant’s petition without the expert testimony rendered inadmissible by Sanchez View "People v. Jeffrey G." on Justia Law