Error and/or relief
We agree with the defendant the exhibit was implied hearsay offered to prove the truth of what it implicitly asserted—that the defendant was a member of the social group. Because the exhibit was the only evidence directly tying the defendant to the social group that carried out the crimes, there is a reasonable probability he would have obtained a more favorable result had the exhibit been excluded. We reverse and remand.
First Holding:
Evidence of an express statement of a declarant is hearsay evidence if such evidence is offered to prove—not the truth of the matter that is stated in such statement expressly—but the truth of a matter that is stated in such statement by implication.
An implied statement may be inferred from an express statement whenever it is reasonable to conclude: (1) that declarant in fact intended to make such implied statement, or (2) that a recipient of declarant’s express statement would reasonably believe that declarant intended by his express statement to make the implied statement.
Authority:
People v. Garcia (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 261, 289
Second Holding:
The exhibit was not offered as circumstantial evidence as the Attorney General contends. It is not capable of serving its nonhearsay purpose regardless of whether the jury believes the matters asserted to be true. It is not akin to a receipt or fishing license that, by its mere presence in a particular location, tends to show someone’s association with that location. The exhibit was found in the cell of others who had no demonstrated tie to the defendant other than through the truth asserted by the exhibit itself.
Authority:
Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 442, 447
Third Holding:
Because the exhibit was inadmissible hearsay, the expert committed Sanchez error when he recounted its contents to the jury. The undisputed circumstances show that the exhibit was not made with a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.
Authority:
People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 686, 688
Fourth Holding:
The state law prejudice standard applies because the exhibit was not testimonial.
Authority:
People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 840
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836–837