People v. Pulley CA3

DISCUSSION

I Expert Testimony Defendant contends the trial court erred by: (1) admitting expert testimony from Detective Foster and Detective David Tuggle stating that defendant and the woman had a pimping or pandering relationship based on their text messages; and (2) permitting Detective Foster to respond to “thinly disguised” hypothetical questions that closely tracked the evidence of the case. He further contends the errors violated his federal constitutional rights to the presumption of innocence, to a fair trial, and to due process under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We conclude that the expert testimony responding to hypothetical questions was properly admitted, but the testimony as to the pimping or pandering relationship was not. However, the error was harmless. A. Additional Background Defense counsel moved in limine to exclude any expert testimony on the behaviors of pimps and prostitutes and on whether defendant and the woman had a pimping or pandering relationship, citing Evidence Code section 720 and People v. Leonard (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 465 (Leonard). Defendant’s motion stated “[t]he proposed expert testimony is a usurpation of the jury’s role…