Legal Opinion

People v. Xue Vang

California Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 2011No. S184212PublishedCited by 166 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHIN, J.

An expert witness testified about whether a crime was gang related. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in permitting the expert to respond to hypothetical questions the prosecutor asked because the questions closely tracked the evidence in a manner that was only thinly disguised. We disagree that the trial court erred. It is required, not prohibited, that hypothetical questions be based on the evidence. The questioner is not required to disguise the fact the questions are based on that evidence.

I. Facts and Procedural History

These facts are taken largely from…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. People v. GardeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. People v. CoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. People v. BoyetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  4. People v. AlbillarCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  5. People v. PrinceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by166 opinions

  1. People v. Kopp, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  2. People v. RobertsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. People v. RiosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. State v. Scott M. Cain(074124)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2016
  5. People v. FranklinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016

161 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API