Great new case re: the expert testimony of a gang officer: Case Name: People v. Archuleta , District: 4 DCA , Division: 2 , Case #: E049095 Opinion Date: 4/11/2014 , DAR #: 4577 Case Holding: Where an experts testimony is merely a conduit for testimonial hearsay to the jury, and it is not shown that the declarant is unavailable or that appellant had a fair opportunity to cross-examine him, a defendants constitutional right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment is violated. A jury convicted appellant of possession of methamphetamine and active gang participation. Law enforcement officers received information that a homicide suspect could be found at appellants residence. At the residence, they found appellant and Ramirez in the garage, each holding suspected methamphetamine. (They did not find the homicide suspect.) At trial, the prosecutions gang expert, a sheriffs deputy, testified that appellant was a high-ranking member of and active participant in the East Side Victoria (ESV) criminal street gang. He based his opinion in part on the testimonial hearsay statement of another gang member, Perez. The court considered whether the experts testimony violated appellants Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and concluded that federal cases provide the proper standard. Experts may rely on testimonial hearsay in forming their opinions but may not simply parrot the content of such hearsay to the jury on direct examination unless the declarant is unavailable or the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. The question is whether the expert is giving an independent judgment or merely acting as a transmitter of testimonial hearsay. The court found that admission of Perezs out-of-court statement that appellant directed an uncharged robbery of a drug dealer by ESV gang members, as the basis for the experts opinion, violated appellants Sixth Amendment rights. The statement essentially was offered for its truth and it was not shown that Perez was unavailable or that appellant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. However, the error was deemed harmless because the verdicts on the possession and gang participation charges were unattributable to the statement.
Posted on: Sat, 03 May 2014 18:21:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015