The trial court properly sustained objections to questions designed to elicit hearsay evidence that formed the basis of the expert's testimony, said the Second District Court of Appeal in People v. Yuksel (July 11, 2012, B231571), __ Cal.App.4th __ [2012 DJDAR 9550].
Defendant was charged with meeting a person believed to be a minor for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. In his defense he presented a clinical and forensic psychologist who opined that defendant was not a pedophile, that is, a person with an abnormal and persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children. After testifying that an important consideration was that there was only one incident, the court sustained the prosecutor's objections to questions asking whether the expert was aware of any other incidents involving defendant and minors.
The testimony was properly excluded in the exercise of the court's discretion, said the court of appeal. The questions attempted to elicit the defendant's hearsay statements to the expert that the offense in this case was an isolated incident, and although an expert may rely on hearsay, the evidence must be reliable and of the type that experts reasonably rely upon in forming their opinions. The court impliedly found that defendant's statements were unreliable and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative value of the testimony was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.