Opinion ID: 2517801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Robert Mishell's testimony

Text: Defendant claims Robert Mishell's memory of the events of January 31, 1988, impaired by both his head injuries and his preexisting bipolar disorder, was unreliable. Hence, defendant urges, Robert's testimony should have been excluded under Evidence Code sections 702 (evidence of witness lacking personal knowledge is inadmissible) and 352 (evidence may be excluded as more prejudicial than probative). Admission of the evidence, defendant insists, violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. As evidence of Robert's faulty recollection, defendant points to inconsistent details related by Robert at various times, including in his preliminary hearing testimony and in his interviews with police officers in the hours and days following the assaults. Perhaps most significantly, defendant notes, Robert's trial testimony that defendant arrived at the Mishell residence with a toolbox, thus suggesting he brought with him the weapon used in the attacks, was contradicted by what he told the police hours after the attacks. The claim is forfeited because defendant did not object at trial to the introduction of Robert's testimony. (Evid.Code, § 353, subd. (a); People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 622, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635 [defendant must raise claim of testimonial incompetence at trial].) At the preliminary hearing, defendant was permitted to examine Robert on the issue of his competency to testify. Following that examination, the preliminary hearing court found Robert qualified to testify from his personal knowledge. Absent a ruling or stipulation that an objection to such testimony would be deemed renewed at trial, defendant's failure to renew it means the issue was not preserved for appeal. ( People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 623-624, 268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127 [objection made in prior trial, but not renewed]; cf. People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 165 Cal.Rptr. 851, 612 P.2d 941 ( Pompa-Ortiz ) [denial of substantial right at preliminary hearing no basis for appellate reversal of conviction following fair trial].) In any event, the claim lacks merit. The principles governing exclusion of testimony on grounds of the witness's lack of capacity are well settled. Under ... current [law], every person is qualified to testify except as provided by statute. (Evid.Code, § 700.) A person is disqualified as a witness only if he or she is `[i]ncapable of expressing himself or herself [understandably] concerning the [testimonial] matter' ( id., § 701, subd. (a)(1)... ), or is `[i]ncapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth' ( id., ... subd. (a)(2) ... ) ( People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 572-573, 106 Cal. Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347 ( Anderson ), italics omitted.) These issues are preliminary fact[s] to be determined exclusively by the court.... (Evid.Code, § 405, subd. (a)....) ( Anderson, supra, at p. 573, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.) Even if a witness is not entirely disqualified for incapacity to communicate understandably or grasp the duty to tell the truth, his or her testimony on a particular matter is inadmissible if he or she lacks personal knowledge of the subject matter. (Evid.Code, § 702, subd. (a).) The capacity to perceive and recollect particular facts is subsumed within the issue of personal knowledge. ( Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th 543, 573, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347, and authorities cited.) But, under Evidence Code section 403, subdivision (a)(2), personal knowledge, including the capacity to perceive and recollect particular events, is determined in a different manner from fundamental capacity to act as a witness. Evidence may be excluded for lack of personal knowledge `only if no jury could reasonably find that [the witness] has such knowledge.' ( Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th 543, 573, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347, italics omitted.) Thus, `if there is evidence that the witness [can perceive and recollect the events at issue], the determination whether he [or she] in fact perceived and does recollect is left to the trier of fact.' ( Id. at pp. 573-574, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347, italics omitted.) Defendant has never claimed Robert was fundamentally disqualified as a witness. Here, as below, he asserts only that Robert's testimony about the events of January 31, 1988, was inadmissible because he lacked the capacity to perceive and recall those events. But the record contains ample evidence from which a rational jury could conclude that Robert did perceive and independently recollect the attacks and their surrounding circumstances, and correctly identified defendant as the assailant. At trial, Robert gave a coherent and entirely plausible account of these events, which account was consistent with the physical evidence. During an extensive cross-examination, he admitted that, before and since the attacks, he suffered from chronic bipolar disorder, controlled by medication, but denied that this condition affected his memory. He conceded he had suffered posttraumatic amnesia during the two weeks following the attacks, and other instances of forgetfulness were revealed. Yet the lengthy cross-examination, in which defense counsel took the witness through an exhaustive review of his preliminary hearing testimony and his several police statements, indicated only minor variations in these versions. That Robert's various accounts were inconsistent in some respects, or that his testimony revealed lapses in memory, is no basis for a determination that he was fundamentally unable to perceive or recollect the testimonial events. ( People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 357, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34; Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th 543, 574, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.) In sum, there was no substantial basis for the exclusion of his testimony. It was up to the jury to decide whether his recollections were accurate. ( Lewis, supra, at p. 358, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34; Anderson, supra, at p. 574, 106 Cal. Rptr.2d 575, 22 P.3d 347.) No error occurred.