Opinion ID: 1941054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Limiting Testimony of Defense Witness Adam Sedlock

Text: Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of his psychological expert, Adam Sedlock, by not permitting Sedlock to testify regarding appellant's adaptive skills. Appellant claims that such testimony was relevant to the question of his ability to plan, deliberate and premeditate, although he neither explains what adaptive skills he lacks nor how they impact his ability to plan, deliberate and premeditate. The Commonwealth responds that, in order to establish diminished capacity, a defendant must show, through psychiatric testimony, that he suffers from a mental disorder affecting the cognitive functions of deliberation and premeditation. According to the Commonwealth, evidence that the defendant lacked the ability to control his actions or that he acted impulsively is irrelevant and thus inadmissible on the issue of specific intent to kill, citing Commonwealth v. Sasse, 921 A.2d 1229 (Pa.Super.), alloc. denied, 595 Pa. 706, 938 A.2d 1052 (2007). The Commonwealth claims that Sedlock properly testified at trial to his opinion of appellant's mental disorder, IQ and psychological diagnosis, but that adaptive behavior (how appellant had adapted to his environment) is not related to cognitive functions as they impact on premeditation or specific intent. Relying on Commonwealth v. Weinstein, 499 Pa. 106, 451 A.2d 1344 (1982), the trial court recognized in its opinion that diminished capacity is an extremely limited defense that can only be established by psychiatric testimony regarding mental disorders affecting the cognitive functions of the brain necessary to formulate specific intent. According to Weinstein, testimony that does not go to specific intent and premeditation is irrelevant. In light of Weinstein, and bedrock restrictions on relevancy, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling. At a sidebar conference, the Commonwealth objected to the introduction of evidence regarding adaptive behaviors, emphasizing that that sort of evidence was irrelevant to a determination of whether appellant had a mental disorder that interfered with his ability to form specific intent. In response, appellant's counsel did not argue that adaptive behaviors are mental disorders, but rather merely offered that she thought the behaviors were part of appellant's mental stability. The trial court pointedly responded that the relevancy of Sedlock's testimony related to appellant's diminished capacity defense, and Sedlock had testified fully with regard to the tests he performed and the results of those tests. The court stated that, although testimony about appellant's adaptive capacity might become relevant at another point in the trialplainly alluding to the penalty phasesuch testimony was not relevant for the proffered point in the guilt phase. Thus, the court sustained the Commonwealth's objection to the testimony. In Commonwealth v. Legg, 551 Pa. 437, 711 A.2d 430, 433 (1998), this Court outlined the parameters of a diminished capacity defense: Diminished capacity, however, is an extremely limited defense. [ Commonwealth v. ] Travaglia [, 541 Pa. 108, 661 A.2d 352 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1121, 116 S.Ct. 931, 133 L.Ed.2d 858 (1996)]. Psychiatric testimony that addresses mental disorders affecting the cognitive functions [of deliberation and premeditation] necessary to formulate a specific intent is admissible. [ Commonwealth v. ] Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, [454 A.2d 937, 943 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 970, 103 S.Ct. 2444, 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983)]. However, psychiatric evidence that a defendant lacked the ability to control his actions or that he acted impulsively is irrelevant and inadmissible on the issue of the defendant's specific intent to kill. Id. In addition to the fact that Sedlock was not a psychiatrist, Sedlock's opinion that petitioner was unable to control his actions and tended to act impulsively was precisely the type of evidence this Court held to be inadmissible, in a similar situation, in Legg. In light of Legg, the trial court plainly did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the Commonwealth's objection to this testimony.