People v. James CA1/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/10/24 P. v. James CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A165982
v.
EDBERT ROBERT JAMES, JR., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct.
No. 02-334058-5)
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Edbert Robert James, Jr. appeals his convictions for second
degree robbery, asserting the trial court improperly limited the testimony of
his expert witness under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez).
We disagree and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an amended
information charging James with two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211;
counts 1 & 4), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1);
count 2), and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245,
subd. (a)(4); count 3). The information further alleged a great bodily injury
enhancement in connection with count 3 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), probation
violations (§ 1203.3), and prior felony convictions (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)).
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The charges arose from four incidents occurring in August and October,
2020. In August 2020, James entered a Chevron gas station and began
taking chips and sandwiches from the shelves. When he was asked to leave,
James became violent, threatened to kill the store manager, and left with
various unpaid items.
In October 2020, James was in the parking lot of a Honda dealership
prior to its opening time. When the service manager requested that James
leave the premises, James began swinging a stick and claimed he was the
boss and would fire the service manager.
Also in October 2020, a security guard working at the Del Norte Plaza
shopping center encountered James inside a Walgreens. He observed James
placing items in a shopping cart and arguing with Walgreens employees.
James asserted he was the president and could do as he wished. When the
security guard asked James to leave, James punched the security guard and
left the store with a shopping cart containing unpaid items.
Two days later, James entered the same Walgreens, and the store
manager asked him to leave. James threatened her with physical violence
and proceeded to take various items from the store.
People’s Supplemental Motion in Limine No. 1
Defense counsel identified Dr. Martin Williams as a potential defense
witness. Prior to trial, the prosecutor filed a motion in limine (Sanchez
motion) to “prohibit expert testimony as to case-specific hearsay.” The
prosecutor argued that while general background information may be
discussed, “ ‘[i]f it is case-specific hearsay and the witness has no personal
knowledge of it, if no hearsay exception applies, and the expert treats the
facts as true, the expert simply may not testify about it.’ ”
2
In advance of Dr. Williams’s testimony, the parties and the court
addressed the Sanchez motion. The court asked what evidence it was being
asked to exclude. The prosecutor responded that Dr. Williams’s report
recounted his conversation with James, including James’s statements that he
was under the influence of alcohol and methamphetamine. Outside of the
conversation with James, the report did not identify any other evidence
supporting Dr. Williams’s evaluation. As Dr. Williams’s report arose “from
case-specific hearsay or case-specific facts relayed to him by [James],” the
prosecutor argued the entire report should be stricken.
In response, defense counsel argued the prosecutor was “conflating
relaying hearsay and relying on hearsay.” Counsel stated he had Dr.
Williams watch the video of James’s conduct from May 2020, and Dr.
Williams “was able to immediately tell that [James] was under the influence
of a central nervous system stimulant. Now, obviously, he couldn’t tell which
one. He gained that information pursuant to their conversation. But there
was enough information for [Dr. Williams] to glean that there was something
else in addition to the underlying medical condition.” Counsel argued Dr.
Williams should be “permitted to testify to his diagnosis and then explain, in
general terms, that this was gleaned from an interview, a standardized test
. . . and the viewing of these videos.”
The court and defense counsel then engaged in the following exchange:
“THE COURT: So I’m looking at [the prosecution’s] Supplemental
Motion in Limine Number 1. . . . [¶] And it reads: The People
move to exclude reference to all case-specific hearsay, including
use of methamphetamine on any incident date. [¶] Do you have
an objection to my granting that part of [the prosecution’s]
motion?
“MR. FREGI: No.
3
“THE COURT: That is granted. [¶] There’s then a semicolon,
and it says: History of drug use, including prior arrests, incidents
or conviction. Any objection? [¶]
“MR. FREGI: No, I agree with that.
“THE COURT:· That is granted. There’s another semicolon:·
Medical records, along with any diagnoses or conclusions
contained therein. Do you have an objection.
“MR. FREGI:· No?
“THE COURT:· That is granted. There’s a semicolon:· And
Defendant’s out-of-court statements, unless and until such case-
specific hearsay is independently proven or meets a recognized
exception to the hearsay rule. [¶] Do you have an objection?
“MR. FREGI:· No.
“THE COURT:· That’s granted.”
Based on counsel’s representations, the court concluded Dr. Williams “is
going to be asked questions about having watched a video and to render an
opinion based on that, based on generalized testing, and explain general
matters.· And from my reading of the cases, all of that is allowed.”
In response, the prosecutor asked for a section 402 hearing prior to any
testimony by Dr. Williams. He asserted he had not been informed that Dr.
Williams reviewed a video and argued that use of the video was only to
confirm a diagnosis based on inadmissible hearsay.
The court refused to conduct a section 402 hearing, stating “Look, you
guys had time to file in limine motions. I granted the one you filed. Now
you’re raising other issues that weren’t raised before. We’ve got a jury that’s
waiting.” The court asked defense counsel, “[W]hat are you gonna do about
the fact that [the prosecution] is pointing out that your expert’s diagnosis
regarding methamphetamine disorder, or use disorder, can only be based on
4
what your client said, there’s no other evidence of that. You even said, just
looking at the video, the expert won’t be able to say what substance it is.”
Defense counsel responded that Dr. Williams “can alter his opinion” and can
talk hypothetically about “methamphetamine and the entire category of
stimulants.”
The court instructed the parties that there can be “no mention of
methamphetamine unless you have a reasonable belief that that is coming
before the jury in an admissible way. And if it’s not, don’t say those words.”
Defense counsel responded, “Fair enough.”
May 2020 Video Evidence
The defense offered testimony from Officer Michael Olivieri, a police
officer, and a related video. Olivieri stated he identified James as a suspect
associated with an incident at a Walgreens. Olivieri testified that James
repeatedly stated he was the owner, and his name was on an answering
machine. James also stated to Olivieri “How do I steal something from
myself?”
Olivieri’s body-worn camera captured his interaction with James, and
the video was played for the jury. In connection with the video, the court
instructed the jury as follows: “You’re going to hear in this exhibit statements
from Mr. James, and you may only consider those statements for the limited
purpose as they may show what Mr. James’s state of mind was at the time
the statements was made, that is May 27, 2020, as it may assist you in
determining what the defendant’s state of mind was at the time of the
offenses alleged in Counts 1 and 4 in this case.· You may not consider the
statements of for the truth of what’s contained in them.”
5
Dr. Williams’s Testimony
The prosecutor again raised the Sanchez issue during trial, just prior to
Dr. Williams taking the witness stand: “I just wanted to clarify the scope of
Dr. Williams’s testimony in regards to Sanchez.· I know the Court had
granted my supplemental motion in limine.· I just wanted to confirm that . . .
Dr. Williams is not permitted to testify to any of the statements he received
directly from [James] during his interview with [James]. I think at this point
my understanding of the ruling is that it was excluded. ·I just -- I want to
make sure I’m on the same page before I start flinging objections and the
Court has already decided.”
Defense counsel responded, in relevant part, “I think [Dr. Williams is]
entitled to talk about his diagnosis.· I don’t think he’s entitled to talk about
specific statements.” Counsel further stated he was not going discuss the
specifics of James’s methamphetamine usage, but “I think due process
requires that [Dr. Williams] be allowed to give a general opinion,” say it is
based on his evaluation, and “leave it at that.”
The court then instructed the parties as follows: “I agree that the doctor
can testify about the diagnosis.· The doctor may not relate statements.· And
to the extent that the doctor may say that the opinion is based upon . . . a
viewing of the video and an interview or an evaluation, I agree with the
People that the doctor could not relate to the jury that the defendant may
have . . . told the doctor that he is a user of or even a dependent on
methamphetamine.· The doctor may not say that. And then that leaves the
prosecutor free to argue what if any weight should be given to an opinion of
that diagnosis . . . .” The court further agreed that the only way Dr. Williams
gets to the “methamphetamine dependency or meth-induced psychosis” is
through his conversation with James, and so he “may not relate to the jury
6
an opinion that is based primarily on information that was given to him by
the defendant, unless that information comes before the jury some other
way.”
Dr. Williams proceeded to testify on behalf of the defense. The court
accepted him as an expert in “the general field of forensic psychology, [with a]
focus on the treatment and diagnosis of mental diseases and disorders,
especially delusional disorders” and as “an expert in the administration of
mental status examinations.” Over the prosecutor’s objection, the court
allowed Dr. Williams to testify that he conducted an evaluation of James. Dr.
Williams opined that he had no indication James was malingering—i.e.,
faking a mental illness—and discussed his review of a video in which James
repeated claimed to be the owner. Dr. Williams opined that James believed
he was the owner and was experiencing a grandiose delusion. He stated,
based on his professional judgment, that James’s conduct in the video “was
an accurate representation of what [James] really believed, sincerely and
absolutely. I saw no evidence that he was attempting to create a certain
illusion or a certain impression.” He also discussed the difference in James’s
demeanor in the video verses when he evaluated James, noting James was
much more agitated, energy “in the realm of mania,” grandiose, and
unreasonable in the video.
On cross examination, Dr. Williams stated his diagnosis was based on
his general experience and knowledge, the video, and his hour-long interview
with James. He confirmed he did not speak with any of the witnesses, watch
any video from the date of the offenses, or observe James’s demeanor around
the time of the incidents. When the prosecutor sought to confirm all bases for
Dr. Williams’s diagnosis, Dr. Williams responded, “That’s not an exhaustive
list, but I’m not sure I’m permitted to discuss everything I considered.”
7
Following a sidebar discussion, Dr. Williams testified, “Based on
everything I know, I would say that’s far more likely to be true than not true”
that James was under delusions at the time of the incidents. The prosecutor
then asked if Dr. Williams could reach a diagnosis if he excluded the content
of what James told him during the interview and only consider James’s
demeanor and the video. Dr. Williams stated doing so is “unusual,” but
responded: “Yes. I would still say that more likely than not it would be the
same opinion, that [James] was delusional at the time of the crimes.”
Following his testimony and after the jury had been dismissed, the
prosecutor put on the record that “there were multiple sideboards both
during [defense counsel’s] examination of Dr. Williams, as well as myself. I
think it’s fair to say a majority of them had to do with teetering on the line of
the Court’s rulings regarding People v. Sanchez. The Court ruled according
to the Court’s disposition.” Defense counsel then responded, “I believe based
on Sanchez, and hearsay in general, that the fact that there was an
evaluation and an interview is not hearsay.· The fact that he based his
opinion in part on the interview is not hearsay.· Sanchez specifically says
that an expert can rely on hearsay.· He just can’t recite as true facts learned
or case-specific hearsay.· And I think it misled the jury to exclude, basically,
the fact that there was an interview at all.· I wasn’t planning on getting
anywhere near the content of the interview, and the doctor knew most
certainly never to mention methamphetamine.· But when you’re asking the
question that assumes that it didn’t happen at all, you kind of put him in a
tough spot because there was this interview that did play a role.” Defense
counsel concluded, “[T]he interview most certainly played a role in his
concluding that he was suffering from delusions, and that is hearsay free.· So
8
I think that Mr. James’s due process rights were seriously trampled upon
during the doctor’s testimony in that regard.”
Verdict
The jury found James guilty of both counts of second degree robbery
(counts 1 & 4) and the lesser included offense of misdemeanor assault (count
3). The jury could not reach a verdict on count 2. The court sentenced James
to a prison term of two years for count 1, a consecutive term of one year for
count 4. The court also sentenced James to 180 days in county jail on count
3, which it deemed satisfied. James timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
James asserts the court erred by limiting the scope of Dr. Williams’s
testimony. He contends his expert was entitled to explain the basis for his
opinion. He further asserts the statements at issue—that he was the
president of Walgreens or owned the store—were not hearsay because they
were not offered to “prove the truth of the matter stated.”
I. Waiver
As a preliminary matter, the Attorney General contends James waived
his challenge to the court’s ruling because he agreed his expert was not
entitled to testify as to the content of the interview under Sanchez.
We agree James did not object to the court’s order granting the People’s
Supplemental Motion in Limine No. 1. As such, any challenge to the validity
of the court’s order has been waived. (See People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d
411, 453–454 [defendant’s failure to object to inadmissible evidence or
request limiting instruction waived issue on appeal].)
However, we do not interpret James’s current appeal as contesting the
actual ruling but rather how it was applied to Dr. Williams’s testimony.
Defense counsel took issue with the prosecutor’s final hypothetical, which
9
asked whether Dr. Williams would have reached the same diagnosis without
the interview. Following Dr. Williams’s testimony, defense counsel argued as
follows:
“Sanchez specifically says that an expert can rely on
hearsay.· He just can’t recite as true facts learned or case-specific
hearsay.· And I think it misled the jury to exclude, basically, the
fact that there was an interview at all.· I wasn’t planning on
getting anywhere near the content of the interview, and the
doctor knew most certainly never to mention methamphetamine.·
But when you’re asking the question that assumes that it didn’t
happen at all, you kind of put him in a tough spot because there
was this interview that did play a role.· But again, he could say it
played a role, but not say the content of it and not even mention
the -- I mean, this is how it got -- he wasn’t allowed to say he
based his opinion on the interview, even though there was no
diagnosis of him -- that the methamphetamine induced
psychosis.· That was what we needed to stay away from.
“But the interview most certainly played a role in his
concluding that he was suffering from delusions, and that is
hearsay free. So I think that Mr. James’s due process rights were
seriously trampled upon during the doctor’s testimony in that
regard.”
Accordingly, James adequately preserved his objection to the limits imposed
on Dr. Williams’s testimony.
II. Application of Sanchez
In Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th 665, the California Supreme Court
addressed whether an expert witness is prohibited from relating case-specific
hearsay content in explaining the basis for his opinion. (Id. at p. 670.) The
Supreme Court concluded as follows: “Any expert may still rely on hearsay in
forming an opinion, and may tell the jury in general terms that he did so.
Because the jury must independently evaluate the probative value of an
expert’s testimony, Evidence Code section 802 properly allows an expert to
relate generally the kind and source of the ‘matter’ upon which his opinion
10
rests.” (Id. at pp. 685–686.) However, “[w]hat an expert cannot do is 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.)
Courts have applied Sanchez to various categories of expert testimony,
including unsupported hearsay regarding a defendant’s history. (See, e.g.,
People v. Jeffrey G. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 501, 511 [Sanchez barred “expert’s
unsupported characterization of defendant’s purported ‘lengthy history’ of
rule violations, his purported decompensation . . . , and his hostile and
aggressive interpersonal relations”]; People v. Burroughs (2016) 6
Cal.App.5th 378, 407, 410–411 [expert psychologists improperly testified to
case-specific facts from hearsay documents “about appellant’s prior record,
adult history, personal history, physical/mental/ emotional health, education,
employment, and terms and conditions of probation”]; cf. People v. Camacho
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 131 [each basis for expert’s diagnosis that defendant
suffered from antisocial personality disorder “was independently established
by other admissible evidence introduced at trial,” including wife’s testimony
that defendant “had a drug problem ‘for a long time.’ ”].)
James argues Sanchez is irrelevant because the statements at issue—
that he was the president of Walgreens or owned the store—were not true,
and “Dr. Williams was not treating the statements as true.” However,
nothing in the record indicates Dr. Williams was prohibited from discussing
those statements. And, in fact, Dr. Williams testified about a video
interaction between James and the police in which James proclaimed to be
the owner of Walgreens. Dr. Williams testified regarding James’s demeanor
in the video, noting James “was aware that his claim to be the owner would
be hard to believe” but concluding “I believe [James] believed it.” Dr.
11
Williams further testified that James’s statement of “ ‘How do I steal from
myself?’ ” was “consistent with [James’s] delusional belief that he owned
Walgreens,” the statement fell within “the category of grandiose delusions,”
and James’s demeanor during the video was within “the realm of mania . . . .
Too much energy, too much excitability, too much grandiosity.” Dr. Williams
concluded by providing his “professional medical opinion” that James was
“suffering from delusion” in the video and when he committed the charged
crimes.
James argued before this court that Dr. Williams was precluded from
comparing James’s demeanor in their interview to James’ conduct as
represented in the video. This argument misrepresents the trial record, as
Dr. Williams was specifically asked about James’s demeanor in their
interview. And the court permitted Dr. Williams to testify that James’s
demeanor during their interview was akin to how he was then-currently
presenting in court, which was a normal demeanor. He compared James’s
normal presentation to his presentation on the video, which Dr. Williams
described as “above normal. Too much energy, too much excitability, too
much grandiosity.”
Nor was Dr. Williams prohibited from explaining the basis for his
expert opinion. He testified his opinion was based on his review of the video
interaction between James and the police, James’s demeanor during their
one-hour interview, his knowledge of mental illness and homeless people, and
his “experience with well over a thousand criminal defendants.”
The only limits on Dr. Williams’s testimony—as reflected in the
appellate record—was Dr. Williams’s diagnosis of a methamphetamine use
disorder and his statement that he reviewed James’s life history. As to the
first limit, we note James does not argue on appeal that this diagnosis or his
12
statements to Dr. Williams regarding methamphetamine usage should have
been admitted. And the court’s order precluding such reference directly
complies with Sanchez. Dr. Williams was required to treat James’s hearsay
statements of past usage as true in order to reach his methamphetamine use
disorder diagnosis, and defense counsel did not offer any non-hearsay
evidence of James’s methamphetamine use. Accordingly, the court properly
precluded Dr. Williams from “relat[ing] as true case-specific facts asserted in
hearsay statements” that were neither “independently proven by competent
evidence” nor “covered by a hearsay exception.” (See Sanchez, supra, 63
Cal.4th at p. 686.)
Regarding the single trial objection to Dr. Williams’s statement that he
“go[es] over the person’s entire life history,” James did not raise this issue on
appeal. Accordingly, any objection has been waived. (L.O. v. Kilrain (2023)
96 Cal.App.5th 616, 620 [“ ‘[W]hen an appellant fails to raise a point, or
asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to
authority, we treat the point as waived.’ ”].)
III. Harmless Error
Even if the court erred in limiting the scope of Dr. Williams’s
testimony, we conclude such error was harmless. (People v. Watson (1956) 46
Cal.2d 818, 836–837 (Watson) [state law error measured under reasonable
probability standard]; People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 999
[evidentiary ruling “if erroneous, is ‘an error of law merely,’ which is
governed by the standard of review announced in [Watson]”]; People v. Jeffrey
G. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 501, 510 [applying Watson standard to alleged
Sanchez violation].)2 Any prejudice from the court limiting Dr. Williams’s
2 James asserts error under the federal harmless error standard in
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman). Regardless, for the
13
testimony was substantially mitigated by the extensive evidence and
arguments made at trial regarding James’s statements about being the
“president” and “owner” of Walgreens.
Defense counsel referenced James’s statements of ownership repeatedly
in his opening statement, and framed the issue for the jury as whether James
“honestly, albeit it [sic] unreasonably, delusionally, but did he honestly
believe that he owned these establishments and, therefore, had a right to
these products?”
Multiple witness then proceeded to testify about their interactions with
James and statements he made regarding his asserted ownership of
Walgreens. For example, Thomas Sumner testified that he encountered
James shoplifting in a Walgreens store while working as a security guard.
When he asked James to leave the store, James became physically violent
and “made a statement that he owns the store and that he could take what he
wanted” while he was walking out of the store with a shopping cart full of
items. Sumner further testified that James made this statement “on other
occasions” when they interacted, and James appeared to be serious in making
such claims. Likewise, Kim Fong, a manager for that same Walgreens,
testified James told her that “he was the president . . . of Walgreens,” and
“own[ed] this place.” In a similar interaction, Wayne Rosemont, the service
manager at Honda of El Cerrito testified James repeatedly claimed to own
the dealership and threatened to fire him. Responding police officers also
confirmed that James would claim to own or be the president or CEO of the
places at issue.
reasons set forth in this section we conclude the error was harmless under
either the Chapman or Watson standard.
14
In addition to witness testimony, the defense played the May 2020
video from a police officer’s body-worn camera depicting an interaction
between James and an officer after an incident at Walgreens. In that video,
James also made statements regarding ownership of Walgreens.
The fact that James made such statements was never contested by the
prosecution. During closing statements, the prosecutor acknowledged that
James “makes statements that he’s the manager. He’s the president. He’s
the owner. . . . [¶] [N]one of that is in dispute.” Rather, the prosecutor
focused on how the jury should interpret such statements, asserting James’s
statements were not a genuine belief of ownership but rather an aggressive
reaction when his theft was challenged. Defense counsel also repeatedly
discussed James’s statements regarding ownership during his summation
and connected those statements to Dr. Williams’s discussion of mental
illness. Counsel noted how James acted “[l]ike he owned the spot,” and
argued “James honestly believed, albeit delusionally, but honestly believed
that he was the owner of these establishments” and thus could not have the
requisite intent to commit theft.
James also has not demonstrated any prejudice associated with the
court’s order striking Dr. Williams’s statement that he considered James’s
life history, particularly in light of James’s concession that Dr. Williams
could not have conveyed any substantive information regarding his life
history. Dr. Williams was allowed to state he relied on his general experience
and knowledge, the video, and his hour-long interview with James; he was
also allowed to note that these items are “not an exhaustive list, but I’m not
sure I’m permitted to discuss everything I considered.”
Finally, James has not demonstrated any prejudice associated with the
prosecutor’s final hypothetical, which asked Dr. Williams about whether he
15
would reach the same diagnosis if he did not consider his interview with
James. Regardless of the propriety of the question, Dr. Williams testified he
would still opine that James was suffering from delusions even without
considering the interview.
The record indicates James was not deprived of his defense that he
lacked the requisite intent for robbery. Counsel offered substantial evidence
regarding James’s statements of ownership and opined regarding how such
evidence should be interpreted. Dr. Williams also opined on the meaning of
that evidence and testified that James was suffering from grandiose
delusions at the time of the crimes. Accordingly, James has failed to
demonstrate any prejudice associated with the court’s ruling.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
16
_________________________
PETROU, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
FUJISAKI, ACTING P. J.
_________________________
RODRÍGUEZ, J.
People v. James/A165982
17