People V. Sanchez: Impact On Family Law Evidence

People v. Sanchez is a 2016 Supreme Court of California case that has had implications for how expert witnesses can rely on hearsay. The case involved a defendant, Armando Sanchez, who was convicted of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. The case sets a precedent for the admissibility of case-specific hearsay and outlines that experts can rely on hearsay as long as it is classified as background information and not a case-specific fact. This distinction is important as it determines whether an expert may tell the jury about the hearsay evidence or not. As such, People v. Sanchez is highly relevant to family law cases, particularly those involving expert witnesses, as it establishes guidelines for the admissibility of their testimony and evidence.

The admissibility of case-specific hearsay

In the context of family law, this could include expert witnesses who rely on hearsay to form their opinions. For example, in a custody case, a psychologist might rely on interviews with the parents and children to form an opinion about the best interests of the child. This would be considered case-specific hearsay, and it would need to be independently proven or covered by a hearsay exception to be admissible.

Another example could be in a divorce case where a forensic accountant relies on financial records and statements from the spouses to determine the value of marital assets. This would also be considered case-specific hearsay, and the accountant would need to be qualified as an expert witness to testify about their findings.

It's important to note that not all hearsay is inadmissible. Background information that provides context for the case, such as general research or commonly accepted principles in a field, can be admitted through expert testimony without falling under a specific exception.

The key distinction is whether the hearsay is a case-specific fact or background information. Case-specific facts must be proven or fall under a hearsay exception, while background information can be introduced through expert testimony without these requirements. Properly classifying the disputed evidence is crucial to determining its admissibility.

The difference between background information and case-specific facts

The case of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 has had a significant impact on how expert witnesses can rely on and present hearsay evidence in court. The case established an important distinction between "background information" and "case-specific facts", which has important implications for family law cases and other legal proceedings.

Background Information:

Background information refers to the knowledge, skills, experience, training, or education that an expert witness possesses on a particular subject. This information is typically acquired through conversations with others, lectures, or reading books, and while it may technically be considered hearsay, it is generally allowed in court as it is practical and necessary for the expert to have this knowledge. For example, an expert witness may testify about mathematical formulas used to estimate car speeds based on the length of skid marks, or the potential causes of hemorrhaging in the eyes, without needing to provide firsthand proof of this information.

Case-Specific Facts:

Case-specific facts, on the other hand, refer to specific details relating to the events and participants involved in the case being tried. These facts must be independently proven by competent evidence or covered by a hearsay exception to be admissible in court. For example, if an expert witness wants to testify about the presence of a diamond tattoo on a person's arm, there must be a witness who saw the tattoo, authenticated photos, or another form of admissible evidence to establish this fact.

The distinction between background information and case-specific facts is crucial because it determines the admissibility of evidence in court. While experts can always rely on background information, they can only testify about case-specific facts if those facts are proven through admissible evidence. This distinction ensures that only reliable and independently verifiable facts are presented to the jury, enhancing the integrity of the judicial process.

In the context of family law cases, this distinction can be applied to various scenarios. For instance, in a divorce proceeding, an expert witness may rely on background information about the typical long-term effects of childhood head injuries to inform their opinion on child custody arrangements. However, case-specific facts, such as the existence and nature of a specific head injury suffered by a child involved in the case, must be proven through admissible evidence, such as medical records or witness testimony.

The rejection of the not-for-the-truth paradigm

The case of People v. Sanchez (2016) has had a significant impact on how expert witnesses can present their testimony in court, particularly in family law cases. The ruling in this case rejected the "not-for-the-truth" paradigm, which previously allowed experts to rely on hearsay evidence to form their opinions, as long as it was not offered as proof of the matter.

The "not-for-truth" paradigm allowed experts to present their opinions based on facts that may not have been independently verified or proven. This meant that an expert's opinion could be based on information that was not necessarily true or accurate. The Sanchez case changed this by requiring that case-specific facts relied on by experts be proven through competent evidence or covered by a hearsay exception. This ensures that the facts an expert relies on are more reliable and accurate.

The Sanchez analysis distinguishes between background information and "case-specific facts." Background information refers to general knowledge, skills, or expertise that an expert has acquired through their training, education, or experience. This type of information is typically allowed, even if it is technically hearsay, as it is practical and necessary for the expert to have this knowledge.

On the other hand, case-specific facts are those directly related to the events and participants involved in the case being tried. These facts must be proven through admissible evidence and cannot be solely based on the expert's testimony. For example, in a car crash case, the length of skid marks observed at the scene is a case-specific fact that must be proven through witness testimony or other competent evidence. The mathematical formulas used to estimate car speeds based on skid mark length, however, would be considered background information that an expert can rely on without the need for additional proof.

The rejection of the "not-for-truth" paradigm in the Sanchez case has important implications for family law cases. It ensures that expert opinions in these often emotionally charged and complex cases are based on accurate and reliable information. By requiring case-specific facts to be proven, the court can have more confidence in the expert's testimony and its relevance to the specific case at hand.

In family law, where the well-being of children and families is at stake, it is crucial that decisions are made based on the best available information. The Sanchez ruling helps ensure that experts provide reliable and accurate testimony, contributing to more informed and just outcomes in family law cases.

The implications of People v. Sanchez for trial attorneys

Prior to the Sanchez ruling, expert witnesses enjoyed more freedom in their testimony, often serving as a conduit for hearsay evidence under the guise of providing context or explaining the basis of their opinion. However, Sanchez drew a clear line between what types of hearsay are permissible and those that are not.

The key distinction introduced by Sanchez is the differentiation between "background information" and "case-specific facts." Background information, which experts often rely on to establish their credentials and expertise, is still admissible. This includes general knowledge, training, and education acquired through conversations, lectures, and reading—even if it is technically hearsay.

On the other hand, case-specific facts are now subject to stricter scrutiny. If a piece of evidence is specific to the case, the expert cannot disclose it to the jury unless it is independently proven by competent evidence or falls under a hearsay exception. This means that attorneys must be diligent in ensuring that case-specific facts relied on by their experts are admissible at trial.

The Sanchez analysis provides a clear framework for this classification. Case-specific facts are those directly "relating to the particular events and participants alleged to have been involved in the case being tried." While the distinction may seem straightforward, the Court acknowledged that there can be grey areas, providing examples to illustrate the difference.

For instance, in the context of a car crash, the presence of fifteen feet of skid marks at the scene is a case-specific fact. This would need to be proven by a witness who measured the marks or through other admissible evidence. On the other hand, mathematical formulas used to estimate car speeds based on skid mark length would be considered background information that an expert could testify about without restriction.

Another example involves a victim with hemorrhaging in their eyes during an autopsy. The presence of hemorrhaging is a case-specific fact that would need to be proven by a witness, photographs, or other competent evidence. However, an expert discussing the potential causes of eye hemorrhaging would be relaying background information, which is permissible.

The implications of Sanchez are far-reaching and have had a significant impact on trial strategy. Attorneys must be vigilant in ensuring that their experts' testimony complies with the Sanchez framework, or risk having key pieces of evidence excluded. The ruling underscores the importance of thorough preparation and attention to detail when it comes to the admissibility of evidence, particularly in family law cases where emotions can run high and every piece of evidence matters.

The impact of People v. Sanchez on expert witnesses

The People v. Sanchez case of 2016 has had a significant impact on how expert witnesses can present their testimony in court. The case has set a precedent for the admissibility of expert witness testimony, particularly regarding the use of hearsay evidence.

In the case, the defendant, Sanchez, was convicted of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. The prosecution argued that Sanchez directly aided and abetted the shooter, and this was supported by expert witness testimony. The Court of Appeal initially reversed the conviction, but this was later overturned by the Supreme Court, which clarified the law on accomplice liability in attempted murder cases.

The key impact of People v. Sanchez on expert witnesses is the distinction it draws between "background information" and "case-specific facts." Expert witnesses can rely on hearsay evidence as background information to support their testimony. This includes information gained from conversations, lectures, and books—sources that are typically hearsay but are not subject to exclusion on those grounds.

However, for case-specific facts, the expert witness must follow different rules. Case-specific facts are those directly related to the events and participants in the case being tried. If an expert wishes to present these facts, they must be independently proven by competent evidence or covered by a hearsay exception. In other words, if the facts are out-of-court statements, they must be admitted through admissible evidence, not simply through the expert's testimony.

This distinction is crucial, as it affects the weight given to expert opinions. If the case-specific facts that form the basis of an expert's opinion are not true, then the opinion itself has no value. Therefore, case-specific facts must be offered for their truth and admitted through appropriate means.

The People v. Sanchez case has brought about a significant shift in how expert witnesses must present their testimony, particularly regarding the use of hearsay evidence. It has moved away from the "not-for-the-truth" paradigm, where a limiting instruction was given to the jury, to a framework that requires case-specific facts to be proven and admitted through competent evidence.

Frequently asked questions