In People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, a prosecutor asked a police sergeant a hypothetical question concerning whether a person might mistakenly identify the location from which a firearm had been fired. (Id. at p. 671.) Defense counsel objected on the ground that the question "called for speculation," and "was not the sergeant's expertise." (Id. at p. 672.) After a sidebar conference, the trial court overruled the objection. The sergeant then drew on "'experience from when he was working at the training academy,'" and stated that "once we put people under stress and shots are being fired, the determination of where a shot came from, even though we know the shot came from the right, the person might say it came from the left or vice versa. So under times of stress, determining where a shot came from often is not possible." (Fuiava, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 672.) On appeal, the defendant contended that the sergeant's opinion was inadmissible because he had "no training or credentials in the science of acoustics or auditory perceptions." (Fuiava, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 672.) The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that the sergeant was sufficiently qualified to render this opinion in light of his experience in training deputies at the training academy. (Id. at pp. 672-673.)