What is the test for admissible evidence in a criminal case where an expert testified that there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing?

² In light of our decision on this issue, we deem it unnecessary to address the People's alternate contentionwhich appears to have meritthat defendant forfeited his claim of alleged prosecutorial misconduct by his counsel's failure to object to the offending statements. (See People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 462, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790 [noting to preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, a criminal defendant must make a timely objection, make known the basis of his [or her] objection, and ask the trial court to admonish the jury ].)

² In light of our decision on this issue, we deem it unnecessary to address the People's alternate contentionwhich appears to have meritthat defendant forfeited his claim of alleged prosecutorial misconduct by his counsel's failure to object to the offending statements. (See People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 462, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790 [noting to preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, a criminal defendant must make a timely objection, make known the basis of his [or her] objection, and ask the trial court to admonish the jury ].)

³ In formulating his or her opinion and relating it to the jury, it is well established that an expert may rely on hearsay evidence and, within the discretion of the trial court, even recite the hearsay statements verbatim. (People v. Valdez (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 494, 509, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 135.) Furthermore, [i]f the statement is received as proof of something other than the truth of the statement itself, it is not hearsay. (People v. Harvey (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1220, 285 Cal.Rptr. 158 [concluding trial court did not err in admitting into evidence pay-owe ledgers because they were admitted as circumstantial evidence of cocaine sales and conspiracy, not for the truth of their contents].)

³ In formulating his or her opinion and relating it to the jury, it is well established that an expert may rely on hearsay evidence and, within the discretion of the trial court, even recite the hearsay statements verbatim. (People v. Valdez (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 494, 509, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 135.) Furthermore, [i]f the statement is received as proof of something other than the truth of the statement itself, it is not hearsay. (People v. Harvey (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1220, 285 Cal.Rptr. 158 [concluding trial court did not err in admitting into evidence pay-owe ledgers because they were admitted as circumstantial evidence of cocaine sales and conspiracy, not for the truth of their contents].)