California Court of Appeal, Yaffee v. Skeen, Docket No. C097746

Hearsay

 

California Law

 

 

 

Under Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th at page 686, “what an expert cannot do is relate as true case-specific facts asserted in hearsay statements, unless they are independently proven by competent evidence or are covered by a hearsay exception.” (See also In re Marriage of Lietz (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 664, 673 [applying the Sanchez findings re state evidentiary rules to civil actions].) Despite the limit Sanchez placed on using experts to testify to the truth of hearsay statements it remains true that, “it is not improper under Sanchez for an expert to consider and rely on case-specific hearsay in forming his or her opinions. (Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p.685.) ‘The limitations that Sanchez placed on expert testimony concern case-specific information that an expert relates to a jury, not materials upon which the expert relies.’ (People v. Camacho (2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 128.)” (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 458.) (Op., p. 36-37).

 

 

(…) An expert’s opinion is conclusory when it is “unaccompanied by a reasoned explanation connecting the factual predicates to the ultimate conclusion ....”  (Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1117.)

 

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Dec. 17, 2024, Yaffee v. Skeen, Docket No. C097746, Certified for Publication)