California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Perez, B263400 (Cal. App. 2016):
her testimony quoting, paraphrasing or summarizing the calls, he has made no showing that a different result is reasonably probable had the tapes themselves been played for the jury. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837.)
2. Detective Jara's testimony as an expert witness
Defendant next asserts that the trial court erred in allowing Detective Jara to offer her opinion on the meaning of jailhouse calls and on the conduct of gang members generally because she was not an expert witness and because her testimony was in any event "unnecessary" because "the jury could have drawn its own inferences and conclusions" about the calls. We review challenges to expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 861.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.