Opinion ID: 1202713
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sua Sponte Limiting Instruction.

Text: (19) Defendant contends that in violation of In re Spencer (1965) 63 Cal.2d 400 [46 Cal. Rptr. 753, 406 P.2d 33], and People v. Quicke (1969) 71 Cal.2d 502 [78 Cal. Rptr. 683, 455 P.2d 787], the court (1) failed to limit, sua sponte, the admissibility of a certain statement he had made to Dr. Sharma solely for the purpose of showing the information on which the psychiatrist based his opinion, and (2) failed to instruct the jury, sua sponte, that it could consider the statement only for that purpose. The statement at issue appears in the prosecutor's cross-examination of defense psychiatrist John Stalberg. The relevant portion of that cross-examination is as follows: Q. On page four of this report at the bottom, did you read when Dr. Sharma says: `When examined on August the 18th' 81 (third interview) the defendant told me that he killed the victim because, God told me to do it. I have killed many other people in the past.  When asked to give details about past killings, the defendant smiled and said, I am not a fool.' [¶] Do you think that perhaps Mr. Poggi is lying when he says things like that? A. I don't think he killed anybody other than this victim, so I believe he's lying, yes, or was lying. (Italics added.) In People v. Quicke, supra, 71 Cal.2d at pages 518-519, we stated as follows: [I]n In re Spencer, supra, 63 Cal.2d 400[,]... we described the nature of the defendant's constitutional right to counsel in the instance of an examination of defendant by a court-appointed psychiatrist. We held that `the presence of counsel at the psychiatric examination is not constitutionally required so long as certain safeguards are afforded to defendant.' [Citation.] We summarized these safeguards in People v. Anderson (1965) 63 Cal.2d 351, 367: `... the court-appointed psychiatrists should not be permitted to repeat the defendant's statements at the guilt trial unless the defendant specifically placed his mental condition into issue. Moreover, the trial judge should instruct the jury that the psychiatrist's testimony at the guilt trial which disclosed defendant's statements should be considered only for the purpose of exposing the information upon which the psychiatrist based his opinion and not as evidence of the truth of the statements.' [¶] These safeguards are as essential at the penalty trial as at the guilt trial. [Citation.] A defendant might well give to a court-appointed psychiatrist detrimental statements as to his past history and habits which the jury would weigh in determining whether or not defendant were fit to live. The court did not err in failing to limit the admissibility of the statement, I have killed many people in the past, and in failing to instruct the jury accordingly. Defense counsel made no request to limit the testimony at the time it was offered and made no tender of the instruction defendant now claims should have been given. Under such circumstances, the court was under no duty to limit the admissibility of evidence or to instruct the jury thereon. ( People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672, 683 [105 Cal. Rptr. 792, 504 P.2d 1256].) [1] Defendant also contends that the court violated the Spencer-Quicke ( supra, 63 Cal.2d 400; supra, 71 Cal.2d 502) rule by failing to limit, sua sponte, the admissibility of the evidence of the high school stabbing, the threat to his stepfather, the chair-throwing incident, and the forcible sodomy solely to some proper nonsubstantive purpose, and by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, that it could consider that evidence only for such purpose. We disagree. The Spencer-Quicke rule is inapplicable. That rule, as explained above, covers testimony disclosing a defendant's statements to a court-appointed psychiatrist in the course of an examination. It is intended to allow the psychiatrist to examine the defendant outside the presence of counsel while safeguarding those interests of the defendant that the right to counsel is designed to protect. ( People v. Quicke, supra, 71 Cal.2d at pp. 518-519; In re Spencer, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 409-413.) The evidence here, however, does not derive from statements defendant made to a court-appointed psychiatrist in the course of an examination, and in no way implicates the right to counsel. Even if the Spencer-Quicke rule were applicable, there was no error here. Defense counsel made no request to limit the testimony at the time it was offered and made no tender of the instruction defendant now claims should have been given. Under such circumstances, as concluded above, the court was under no obligation to limit or instruct sua sponte.