People v. Portillo (2023) B315241 B315241; filed 5/15/23. ![[Files/CaseFiles/B315241.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B315241.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Majority opinion: first excerpt quotes People v. Hopson (2017) 3 Cal.5th 424, 432. Advertised retail prices as circumstantial evidence of market value; the Evidence Code section 1523 objection was forfeited and the section 1340 exception was not decided. Justice Segal concurred in the result on different reasoning. > When considering whether an out-of-court assertion is nonhearsay, “[t]he first and most basic requirement for applying the not-for-the-truth limitation . . . is that the out-of-court statement must be offered for some purpose independent of the truth of the matters it asserts. That means that the statement must be capable of serving its nonhearsay purpose regardless of whether the jury believes the matters asserted to be true.” (People v. Hopson (2017) 3 Cal.5th 424, 432, citing 2 McCormick on Evidence (7th ed. 2013) The Hearsay Rule, § 249, p. 189, fn. 2 [“if in fact the statement must be true for the inference desired, then the ostensible nonhearsay use is invalid”]; accord, Hart, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 447; People v. Armstrong, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 786.) — People v. Portillo (2023) B315241, slip op., p. 13–14. > Rather, the advertised prices may be considered by the jury as circumstantial evidence of the price at which willing sellers and willing buyers would consummate a transaction in the marketplace. — People v. Portillo (2023) B315241, slip op., p. 19.