PEOPLE v. COOPER
In prosecution for theft from an elder, exclusion of victim's videotaped statements to police in their entirety was an abuse of discretion where portions of the statements were admissible for nonhearsay purposes or under hearsay exceptions, and exclusion was based solely on erroneous conclusion that statements constituted testimonial hearsay in their entirety and were inadmissible under Confrontation Clause. Victim's statements during police interview, which did not focus on establishing facts of a past crime but on evaluating victim's circumstances and condition, and which did not include accusations of wrongdoing by defendant, were not testimonial in nature. Even if interview was testimonial, portions offered solely to show victim's mental state were not made excludable by Confrontation Clause. Where police re interviewed victim for the primary purpose of trial preparation, such interview was testimonial, but portions not offered for truth of the matters asserted were not made inadmissible by Confrontation Clause. Portion of videotape depicting the condition of victim's residence was not testimonial. Trial court erred in precluding the testimony of expert on the ground that her opinions were based in part on the testimonial interviews of victim. Trial court erred in excluding testimony of prosecution's mental health expert on ground that it was based on testimonial hearsay. Constitutional ban on admission of testimonial hearsay does not mandate exception to rule that expert may rely upon hearsay or other inadmissible evidence in forming opinion.
Comments on PEOPLE v. COOPER