Opinion ID: 2634134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hearsay Verification of Prosecution's Expert Testimony

Text: At trial, Agent Sollars testified about the shoeprint evidence for the prosecution. On direct examination, Sollars stated that he had received independent verification of his conclusions that Golob's right boot could have made one of the recovered prints and that it was highly probable that Golob's right boot was the source of another. He went on to explain that according to CBI lab protocol, any results of highly probable or positive have to be independently verified [] by another examiner before [the results are released]. On redirect, the prosecutor again inquired about CBI standard operating procedures and whether Sollars had gotten a second opinion on his highly probable conclusion. At no time did Golob object to this testimony. Finally, during rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor compared Sollars's testimony to Cox's testimony. He stated, And ask yourself who had some independent verification. . . . Who had the report verified? It was Agent Sollars. The court of appeals held that Sollars's testimony regarding the independent verification of his results was inadmissible hearsay. However, the court of appeals also concluded that, the error did not fundamentally undermine the fairness of the trial. The court reasoned that the guilty verdict did not depend on the independent verification, but on two related circumstances: (1) the fact that the bootprints recovered from the scene plainly matched prints made from Golob's boot, and (2) the items recovered from Golob's backpack  the orange mesh vests and the camouflage pants coated with the chemical residue  indicated that he had been at the crime scene. Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. CRE 801(c). Unless an exception applies, hearsay statements are generally inadmissible. CRE 802. The prosecution contends that the references to independent verification of Sollars's conclusions were not hearsay because they were offered only to explain CBI's protocol for conducting shoeprint analysis. According to the prosecution, under CRE 703, this testimony is properly classified as non-hearsay because the independent verification was part of the information Sollars relied upon in forming his expert opinion and was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. See CRE 703 (permitting an expert to testify to facts and data that are otherwise inadmissible in evidence so long as they formed the basis of the expert's opinion and are of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field); see also Houser v. Eckhardt, 168 Colo. 226, 233, 450 P.2d 664, 668 (1969) (The rule prevails generally that expert witnesses may testify to the information upon which they have relied in reaching their conclusions. . . . When presented for this purpose, the statements are not evidence of the matters stated, and hence not hearsay, but are merely explanatory of the opinion, enabling the jury to weigh it in the light of its basis.). We disagree. First, as the court of appeals explained in a well-reasoned argument addressing this precise issue: The use of facts and data to which CRE 703 applies is distinct from the use here. . . . [T]he testifying expert did not use the peer's conclusions as a basis for her findings and opinions. The conclusions merely bolstered her findings and opinions. People v. Griffin, 985 P.2d 15, 18 (Colo.App.1998) (emphasis in original). In his testimony, Sollars stated that he only sought independent verification after he already reached his own conclusions. Thus, the verification did not provide a basis for the expert opinion, it provided additional support. Accordingly, the prosecution cannot rely on CRE 703 to justify the admission of this statement. Moreover, during his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor pointed to the verification as evidence that Sollars's conclusions were correct and, thereby, sought to bolster Sollars's credibility. The prosecutor told the jury, [A]sk yourself who had some independent verification. . . . Who had the report verified? It was Agent Sollars. The prosecutor was not using the hearsay testimony merely to describe the CBI's internal procedures as providing a basis for Sollars's conclusions; he directly encouraged the jury to use this fact as a reason for relying on Sollars's conclusion and discounting the testimony of Golob's expert witness. Because the prosecutor used the non-testifying witness's independent verification to prove the truth of the matter asserted  that is, to argue in favor of the validity of Sollars's findings  this testimony was inadmissible hearsay. However, because we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the basis that the trial court improperly restricted the testimony of Golob's expert witness, we do not determine whether the admission of this hearsay testimony standing alone would require reversal.