People v. James CA1/3

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…