Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reference to a Menendez Brother

Text: Defendant contends that his right to counsel was violated because the defense expert, Dr. Vicary, revealed during recross-examination that defendant had spoken to one of the Menendez brothers prior to taking several psychological tests that Vicary testified defendant had answered in such a manner as to create the impression he was mentally ill. Defendant objected when the prosecutor asked if one of the people defendant might have spoken to prior to taking the tests was one of the Menendez brothers. Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the grounds it was improper for the prosecutor to suggest defendant was receiving advice from one of the Menendez brothers. In the course of the discussion, the prosecutor said that Vicary had mentioned defendant had talked to the Menendez brother off the cuff. The trial court found the question was fair and denied the mistrial but told the prosecutor there's going to be no additional questioning on that. There was no further reference to the subject. Defendant contends that Dr. Vicary violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by revealing to the prosecutor that defendant told Vicary he had talked to one of the Menendez brothers. Defendant failed to object on this ground in the trial court, where he only objected to defendant being associated with one of the Menendez brothers. His claim, therefore, is forfeited. ( People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 250, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710 [constitutional objection to admission of evidence forfeited if not raised below].) In any event, admission of defendant's statement to Vicary was relevant to the latter's assessment of defendant's mental state, which defendant himself tendered as an issue at the penalty phase, and its admission did not violate either his Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights. ( People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1190, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146.) The prosecutor had established from Dr. Vicary that defendant had answered questions on the psychological tests so as to suggest he was mentally ill; that he may have sought advice from other inmates on how to do so was clearly relevant to the assessment of his mental state, and any such information he provided to Vicary was not privileged. Even if the prosecutor's bare reference to one of the Menendez brothers was improper, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion. ( People v. Burgener, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 873, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 62 P.3d 1 [mistrial should be granted only when a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged].) For the same reason, even assuming the reference was improper, there is no reasonable possibility the jury would have rendered a different verdict in the penalty phase absent the error. ( People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448, 250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135.)