How should the jury consider an expert's testimony?

Defendant challenges the trial court's mid-trial advisement as to how the jury should consider an expert's testimony, arguing that the court "essentially told the jury that the police officer's accuracy was unimpeachable and distinguished the officer from 'witnesses' whose accuracy the jury could consider." However, we question whether the record supports defendant's interpretation of the mid-trial advisement. As reported, the trial court told the jury that the expert's testimony would fail if the jury did not believe the testimony of the witnesses that the expert relied on in reaching his opinion. To the extent the mid-trial advisement is "susceptible of the interpretation defendant now asserts, [defense] counsel likely would have objected at trial on this basis. Such an omission suggests that " ' "the potential for [confusion] argued now was not apparent to one on the spot." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1203.) Additionally, during closing instructions, the jurors were correctly advised, in pertinent part, that they were to determine whether the information on which an expert relied "was true and accurate," and they were free to "disregard any opinion" that they found to be "unbelievable, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence." Any confusion that might

Page 18

have been caused by the mid-trial advisement was rendered harmless by the trial court's closing instructions.