People v. Soliz CA2/6

DISCUSSION

We conclude admission of Contreras’s report, as well as Booth’s testimony based on the report, violated the Confrontation Clause. That clause prohibits admission of “testimonial hearsay” in most circumstances. (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 53 [158 L.Ed.2d 177].) Hearsay is an “out-of-court statement[] offered ‘to prove the truth of the matter asserted.’” (Smith v. Arizona (2024) 144 S.Ct. 1785, 1792 [219 L.Ed.2d 420] (Smith); see also Evid. Code § 1200; People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 674.) Contreras’s report was hearsay. The report was an out-of- court statement offered to prove the truth of its contents—chiefly, that the tested substance was methamphetamine. To the extent Booth sought to offer an “‘independent opinion’” based on his review of Contreras’s work, Smith explains the Confrontation Clause can still be implicated. (Smith, supra, 144 S.Ct. at p. 1800.) Such an expert opinion is based on the truth of the analyst’s underlying factual statements—for example, that the analyst “had performed certain tests according to certain protocols and gotten certain results.” (Id., at pp. 1799-1800.) If the hearsay is also testimonial, defendants in…