California forensic evaluations — two admissibility tests, one report.

Kelly + Sargon — California’s hybrid test.

California has not adopted Daubert wholesale. Instead, the state operates a hybrid: People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24 (1976), and People v. Leahy, 8 Cal. 4th 587 (1994), establish a Frye-style general-acceptance test for novel scientific techniques. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal. 4th 747 (2012), then layered a Daubert-style reliability inquiry on top: trial courts must act as gatekeepers under California Evidence Code § 801 to ensure that expert opinion is based on matter of a type that reasonably may be relied upon, that the methodology is sound, and that the analytical gap between data and conclusion is not so great as to make the opinion speculative.

For forensic psychology specifically, the Kelly inquiry most often surfaces around novel instruments and emerging assessment techniques. The Sargon inquiry is broader and applies to every expert opinion: foundation, methodology, and the inferential chain. A California report that satisfies neither test fully — or that addresses one but not the other — is exposed at the threshold.

People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal. 4th 665 (2016), reshaped how experts may rely on case-specific hearsay. The expert may consider hearsay as part of the basis for an opinion, but cannot relate the specific contents of testimonial hearsay statements to the trier of fact unless those statements are independently admissible or the declarant is available for cross. Reports that incorporate detailed collateral interview content as factual narrative invite Sanchez objections, sometimes with significant limiting effect on the testimony at trial.

California competency procedure.

Penal Code § 1368 governs the procedural framework for competency in California. The substantive standard remains Dusky, with state-specific gloss. Restoration is handled under §§ 1370 (felony) and 1370.01 (misdemeanor), with statutory caps on restoration commitment that have been actively litigated — including People v. Quiroz and the line of cases following from Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), on the constitutional limit on restoration commitment.

For the report writer, California-specific issues include the role of the appointed evaluator (court-appointed vs. party-retained), the procedural timing tied to § 1368 doubt, and the increasingly contested intersection between § 1368 incompetency and the Mental Health Diversion framework under PC § 1001.36, which provides an alternative path that requires its own clinical opinion.

See the CST evaluation page for the substantive analysis. ForensicShield’s review applies the California-specific procedural overlay when the venue is indicated.

California’s insanity defense.

California uses a M’Naghten cognitive test, codified in Penal Code § 25(b): the defendant is insane if, by reason of mental disease or defect, the defendant was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of the act or of distinguishing right from wrong. The volitional prong is not part of the California test. The defense bears the burden by a preponderance.

Penal Code § 1026 governs the procedural posture: bifurcated trial, court-appointed alienists for the sanity phase, and the post-acquittal commitment process under § 1026.5. The commitment process — particularly the maximum commitment term and the recommitment-extension procedure under § 1026.5(b) — has been the subject of extensive appellate litigation. Reports that don’t address the specific procedural posture (initial NGI evaluation vs. recommitment vs. release evaluation) miss the framework the court is operating in.

California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act.

California’s SVPA, codified at Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 6600–6609.3, is among the most extensively litigated SVP statutes in the country. People v. Hubbart, 19 Cal. 4th 1138 (1999), upheld the constitutionality of the original Act. Subsequent amendments and Supreme Court of California decisions have shaped the contemporary framework.

The SVPA evaluation process is itself procedurally specific: the Department of State Hospitals coordinates the initial screening and evaluator panel selection; Reilly v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 641 (2013), and People v. McKee, 47 Cal. 4th 1172 (2010), shaped procedural and equal-protection requirements; indeterminate commitment under the post-2006 amendments has been litigated extensively. ForensicShield’s SVP review surfaces these procedural overlays alongside the substantive psychosexual analysis covered in the psychosexual evaluation page.

California custody evaluation framework.

California custody analysis sits on top of Family Code § 3011 (best-interest factors), § 3020 (frequent and continuing contact policy), § 3041 (non-parental placement), § 3044 (rebuttable presumption against custody for a perpetrator of domestic violence), and § 3027.1 (sanctions for knowingly false abuse allegations). California custody evaluations are governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 5.220, which sets minimum qualifications, training requirements, and methodology expectations — including specific requirements that map closely to the AFCC Model Standards.

Relocation evaluations are governed by In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal. 4th 1072 (2004), which articulates the factor test California courts apply when one parent seeks to relocate with the child. A custody evaluator opining on a California relocation case without addressing the LaMusga factors is in a different category of vulnerable than for a non-relocation custody report.

See the child custody evaluation page for the substantive methodology. The California overlay adds Rule 5.220 compliance, the § 3044 DV presumption handling, and the LaMusga factor test where relocation is at issue.

What gets attacked in California reports.

• Kelly foundation gaps. Use of a novel instrument or technique without addressing the general-acceptance prong invites a Kelly motion before substance is reached.
• Sargon analytical-gap challenges. Even for accepted methodology, opinions where the inferential chain from data to conclusion is too thin are vulnerable under Sargon’s reliability gatekeeping.
• Sanchez hearsay limits. Reports that recite the contents of testimonial hearsay (witness statements, treating-clinician notes that contain third-party reports) as factual narrative may have those portions excluded at trial — sometimes leaving a report that has been cited for foundation but cannot be fully presented to the jury.
• Rule 5.220 compliance. Family Code custody evaluations must satisfy the procedural and methodological requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 5.220. Non-compliance is a discrete vulnerability.
• Section 3044 presumption. When domestic violence is at issue, the rebuttable presumption against custody must be addressed in custody evaluations — both substantively and as a framework the court will weigh.
• SVPA procedural posture. The State-Hospital evaluator panel context, the indeterminate commitment framework, and the procedural equal-protection requirements from Reilly / McKee shape what an SVP report must address.
• Mental Health Diversion (PC § 1001.36). Increasingly relevant to the criminal forensic context. Reports may be asked to opine on diversion eligibility alongside or instead of the traditional § 1368 / § 1026 questions.

What ForensicShield checks for California-posture reports.

• Both Kelly/Leahy general-acceptance and Sargon reliability prongs are applied as the admissibility frame
• Sanchez basis-evidence issues are flagged where the report incorporates testimonial hearsay
• Statutory mapping for PC § 1368, § 1026, § 1370/1370.01, and WIC § 6600 is checked against the analysis
• Family Code custody factors (§ 3011, § 3020, § 3044) and Rule 5.220 compliance are surfaced for custody work
• LaMusga factor coverage is flagged when relocation is at issue
• Mental Health Diversion (PC § 1001.36) is considered alongside the traditional § 1368 framework when applicable
• California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority is surfaced with verified citations

Other jurisdiction-specific guides.

See the federal jurisdiction page for FRE 702 / Daubert practice in federal court. The same substantive evaluation pages apply across jurisdictions with state-specific overlays: competency, criminal responsibility, violence risk, psychosexual / SVP, custody. The Daubert self-audit checklist applies to any reliability-gated jurisdiction.