In People v. Sanchez, the Supreme Court today holds that the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, precluded a prosecution expert from relating “case-specific statements . . . concerning [the] defendant’s gang membership.” The comprehensive unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan reverses jury findings that supported street gang enhancements. The court disapproves a line of its previous decisions on experts and hearsay.
The court’s opinion includes extended general discussions about hearsay and the permissible scope of expert testimony. Here’s one statement that is likely to be quoted often in future appellate opinions and briefs: explaining that experts may testify to some second-hand information, the court says, “A physician is not required to personally replicate all medical experiments dating back to the time of Galen in order to relate generally accepted medical knowledge that will assist the jury in deciding the case at hand.”
The court reverses the Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal. Actually, the Supreme Court doesn’t reverse the Court of Appeal, it reverses the true findings on the street gang enhancements, but the Court of Appeal did affirm the gang enhancements that the Supreme Court reverses. “[T]he Supreme Court normally will affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the Court of Appeal, but may order another disposition.” (Rule 8.528(a).) This is one of those other dispositions.