California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)
360. Statements to an ExpertDownload PDF
360.Statements to an Expert
<Insert name> testiﬁed that in reaching (his/her)
conclusions as an expert witness, (he/she) considered [a] statement[s]
made by <insert name>. [I am referring only to the
statement[s] <insert or describe statements admitted for this
limited purpose>.] You may consider (that/those) statement[s] only to
evaluate the expert’s opinion. Do not consider (that/those) statements as
proof that the information contained in the statement[s] is true.
New January 2006
Although the court has no sua sponte duty to give this instruction, it should be
given if appropriate under the circumstances. (People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d
672, 683 [105 Cal.Rptr. 792, 504 P.2d 1256], disapproved on other grounds in
People v. Wetmore (1978) 22 Cal.3d 318, 324 [149 Cal.Rptr. 265, 583 P.2d 1308]
and People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684–685, fn. 12 [160 Cal.Rptr. 84,
603 P.2d 1].)
This instruction should not be given if all of the statements relied on by the expert
were admitted under applicable hearsay exceptions. If some but not all of the
defendant’s statements were admitted for the limited purpose of evaluating the
expert’s testimony, specify those statements in the bracketed sentence.
• Instructional Requirements. In re Spencer (1965) 63 Cal.2d 400, 412 [46
Cal.Rptr. 753, 406 P.2d 33].
5 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Criminal Trial, § 113.
3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 71,
Scientiﬁc and Expert Evidence, § 71.04 (Matthew Bender).
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[b] (Matthew Bender).