Opinion ID: 2545608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: The Testimony of Dr. Garcia and Harmless Error

Text: As we consider the propriety of the trial court having allowed Caraballo's competency expert, Dr. Garcia, to offer rebuttal testimony during the penalty phase, we are mindful that [a] trial court has wide discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence, and, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, a ruling regarding admissibility will not be disturbed. Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024, 1029 (Fla.1981). Given the clear confidentiality protection afforded by rule 3.211(e)(1), the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Dr. Garcia to testify. We also conclude that the admission of Dr. Garcia's testimony was not harmless error. When examining whether an error is harmless, this Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986). If the appellate court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict, then the error is by definition harmful. Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 541 (Fla.1999) (quoting DiGuilio, 491 So.2d at 1139). Dr. Garcia's testimony focused heavily on whether Caraballo was a malingerer. The testimony suggested to the jury that Caraballo lied about having some or all of the types of hallucinations that he claimed, feigned a visual hallucination during the competency evaluation, and purposely gave incorrect answers on the malingering test in an effort to appear to be incompetent to proceed. There is little question that if the jury believed Dr. Garcia's testimony, it would have discounted other evidence that the defense introduced as mental health mitigation. Thus, the admission of Dr. Garcia's testimony interfered with the jury's ability to conduct a proper evaluation of [w]hether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist[ed] which outweigh[ed] the aggravating circumstances found to exist. § 921.141(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). Consequently, there is at a minimum a reasonable possibility that the admission of Dr. Garcia's testimony, which attacked the credibility of evidence offered by Caraballo as mitigation, affected the jury's determination of whether it should recommend a sentence of life imprisonment or death. Therefore, the error was harmful. This Court has previously addressed rule 3.211(e) claims in Phillips v. State, 894 So.2d 28 (Fla.2004), and Long v. State, 610 So.2d 1268 (Fla.1992). While this Court concluded that the testimony of a competency expert was permissible in Phillips and Long, we note significant procedural and factual distinctions between the two cases and Caraballo's case and find them inapplicable here.