People v. Veamatahau

• Citation: 9 Cal.5th 16,259 Cal.Rptr.3d 205,459 P.3d 10
• Decision Date: 27 February 2020
• Docket Number: S249872
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph VEAMATAHAU, Defendant and Appellant.

9 Cal.5th 16

459 P.3d 10

259 Cal.Rptr.3d 205

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Joseph VEAMATAHAU, Defendant and Appellant.

S249872

Supreme Court of California.

February 27, 2020

Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary K. McComb, State Public Defender, Barry P. Helft, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, and William Whaley, Deputy State Public Defender, for the Office of the State Public Defender as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan, Donna M. Provenzano, Eric D. Share and Huy T. Luong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.

Evidence Code section 802 allows a testifying expert to "state on direct examination the reasons for his opinion and the matter (including ... his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) upon which it is based." So long as the matter is "of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert," it may be relayed to the factfinder "whether or not admissible." ( Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (b) ; all further unspecified statutory references are to the Evidence Code.) Accordingly, to support his opinion, an expert is permitted to relate to the jury background information that is technically hearsay, including general knowledge and "premises generally accepted in his field." ( People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 685, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102, 374 P.3d 320 ( Sanchez ).) The expert, however, cannot "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." ( Id. at p. 686, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102, 374 P.3d 320.)

In this case, we determine whether an expert related impermissible case-specific hearsay. The expert told the jury that he identified the controlled substance the defendant was charged with possessing by comparing the visual characteristics of the pills seized against a database containing descriptions of pharmaceuticals. The expert testified that this procedure was "the generally accepted method of testing for this kind of substance in the scientific community," and his search on the database led him to the conclusion that the pills contained 1 alprazolam, the generic name for Xanax

. The expert also revealed the contents of the database, stating that if one looks up a particular imprint number, "[the database is] going to tell you that ... [a pill bearing such imprint] contains alprazolam, 2 milligrams." After hearing this testimony and other evidence, the jury convicted defendant of possession of alprazolam.

Defendant appealed, asserting that the expert testimony violated Sanchez ’s prohibition against communication of case-specific hearsay. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It concluded that the "testimony about the database, while hearsay, was not case specific, but the type of general background information which has always been admissible when related by an expert." ( People v. Veamatahau (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 68, 73, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 724 ( Veamatahau ).) The court further found sufficient evidence supported defendant’s conviction for possession of alprazolam.

We agree with the Court of Appeal on both of these issues and affirm its judgment in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2015, an East Palo Alto police officer, Sergeant Clint Simmont, spotted defendant Joseph Veamatahau’s vehicle making an unlawful turn. The officer activated his lights, and defendant fled but was eventually apprehended. A search of defendant’s person and vehicle revealed a plastic bag containing what turned out to be cocaine base and — as is relevant for this appeal — pills wrapped in cellophane inside his pocket. Sergeant Simmont arrested defendant and interrogated him at the police station. A recording of the interview was played for the jury. During the interrogation, the officer asked defendant about the pills, saying, "What about the pills that you had, the bars? The Xanibars?" Defendant responded, "I take those," and admitted to taking "a lot," "four or five" pills "[e]very day," "until I feel good."

At trial, Sergeant Simmont testified concerning his experience in narcotics investigation and referred to the pills recovered as "Xanax pills." Scott Rienhardt, a criminalist from the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Forensic Laboratory, also testified. Rienhardt worked in the "controlled substances ... and toxicology unit" at the laboratory, where he had been employed for seven years. Rienhardt held a degree in "chemistry, with an emphasis in analytical chemistry" and had previously worked for the Drug Enforcement Administration. Over the course of his career, he had tested for controlled substances "thousands of times." Specific to "alprazolam ... otherwise known as Xanax

," Rienhardt had identified the drug "in the hundreds" of times. Based on this testimony, the court designated Rienhardt as "an expert in the area of forensic testing of controlled substances, specifically heroin, cocaine base, and alprazolam."

Rienhardt then testified regarding the process by which "evidence comes into the lab to be tested after it’s been seized by the police." Rienhardt’s testimony, along with Sergeant Simmont’s, established that Rienhardt examined the pills recovered from defendant. The prosecutor then asked Rienhardt if he was "able to identify the contents" of the pills. Rienhardt responded affirmatively. When the prosecutor inquired about the method by which Rienhardt performed the identification, Rienhardt explained he used "a database that [he] searched against [ ] the logos that were on the tablets." Following up on the explanation, the prosecutor asked, "Is that the generally accepted method of testing for this kind of substance in the scientific community?" Rienhardt confirmed that it was. He then opined that, as a result of following this method, he "found the tablets to contain alprazolam

."

On cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to cast doubt on Rienhardt’s identification. Counsel first asked whether Rienhardt performed chemical tests on the pills. Rienhardt said he did not and explained that such tests were not the procedure followed by the San Mateo Forensic Laboratory. Counsel then suggested that a visual examination did not rule out the possibility that the tablets "could be something else." Rienhardt’s response indicated why he did not believe the tablets were "something else." According to Rienhardt, when "there’s a controlled substance in the tablet, the FDA requires companies to have a distinct imprint on those tablets to differentiate it from any other tablets. The FDA regulates that. [¶] And if there’s a tablet that has — in this case GG32 — or 249 [as an imprint] — you can look that up. And it’s going to tell you that it contains alprazolam

, 2 milligrams. And that’s — we trust that, all those regulations being in place, to say that there’s alprazolam in those tablets." Rienhardt conceded, however, that he did not "know who put those little letters" on the tablets.

At the end of the prosecutor’s presentation of evidence, and outside of the presence of the jury, defendant moved for acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1. Defendant faulted the prosecution for not having performed a "traditional test ... where you actually test the substance." "The only evidence provided," claimed defendant, was "a visual test to compare that it’s a Xanax

pill," and "that’s [not] enough for the jury ... to go back and deliberate about." The court denied the motion. As it explained, "Mr. Rienhardt testified that method that he used is the one generally accepted in the scientific community. The jury can decide what weight to give the fact that they were identified by physical form and not by a chemical test. But Mr. Rienhardt’s testimony gives the jur[ors] enough information from which they can make that determination themselves." Defense counsel then argued to the jury during closing statements that the drug identification procedure employed was faulty. Counsel emphasized that Rienhardt "didn’t test the Xanax" and merely "guess[ed] it’s Xanax ... [by] look[ing] at the picture" from the database. The jury subsequently convicted defendant of possessing alprazolam

.

Defendant appealed his conviction. Before the Court of Appeal, as here, defendant contended "his conviction must be reversed because Rienhardt’s testimony relayed case-specific hearsay to the jury which was improper under Sanchez ." ( Veamatahau , supra , 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 72, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 724.) The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that "the only ‘case-specific’ fact here concerned the markings Rienhardt saw on the pills recovered from defendant." ( Id. at p. 74, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 724.) However, Rienhardt’s "testimony about the appearance of the pills was not hearsay ... because it was based on his personal observation." ( Ibid. ) What was not based on Rienhardt’s personal knowledge was information obtained from the database, but this information "was not about the specific pills seized from defendant, but generally about what pills containing certain chemicals look like." ( Id. at p. 75, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 724, fn. omitted.) Although the information "is clearly hearsay, it is the type of background information which has always been admissible under state evidentiary law." ( Ibid. , fn. omitted.)

The Court of Appeal thus found that Rienhardt’s testimony was properly admitted. In reaching this conclusion, the court expressly disagreed with People v. Stamps (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 988, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 828 ( Stamps ), "a factually similar case" in which the court found that the expert’s testimony was inadmissible. ( Veamatahau , supra , 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 73, 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 724.) In the unpublished portion of its opinion, the Veamatahau ...