Opinion ID: 2607539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excluded Testimony of Defense Psychologist

Text: Grafton called Dr. Mitchell in her case-in-chief. The prosecutor successfully requested an offer of proof on the nature of the proposed testimony. Outside the jury's presence, Grafton's counsel explained that, based upon professional experience, interviews, and the administration of certain psychological tests, Dr. Mitchell would give an expert opinion as to whether Grafton possesses any pathology in the nature of sexual deviation. Counsel insisted that the testimony was admissible as character evidence, because it tended to show that Grafton has no predisposition to commit lewd or incestuous acts. (Citing Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d); Evid. Code, § 1102; all further unlabeled statutory references are to the Evidence Code.) Relying on Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24, and People v. Bledsoe (1984) 36 Cal.3d 236 [203 Cal. Rptr. 450, 681 P.2d 291], the prosecutor essentially replied that a defendant must first show that a psychological profile of a child molester exists, and that its absence in a particular person is generally accepted by other experts to mean that the person has not molested children. Defense counsel countered that the proffered testimony need only meet, and did meet, the requirements for expert opinion testimony set forth in section 801, subdivisions (a) and (b), i.e., it would assist the trier of fact, and was based on matter upon which experts may reasonably rel[y]. Defense counsel cited the pre-Evidence Code case of People v. Jones (1954) 42 Cal.2d 219 [266 P.2d 38], for the proposition that expert opinion that a defendant displays no signs of sexual deviance is admissible as character evidence in a Penal Code section 288 prosecution. The trial court ruled that a Kelly/Frye reliability showing of an unspecified nature must be made before the jury would be allowed to hear Dr. Mitchell's testimony. In the ensuing hearing under section 402, subdivision (b), [9] Dr. Mitchell first listed his expert qualifications  an issue which has never been in serious dispute. [10] Grafton's counsel then elicited the following testimony on direct voir dire examination: approximately one week earlier, Grafton was administered two standardized measures of personality function, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI). The MMPI  the primary test  was copyrighted in 1943 and, following several revisions, is still the most widely used psychological test on both a local and national level. Dr. Mitchell continued: the MMPI is always used by psychiatrists and psychologists to diagnose patients at various stages of clinical treatment. It also is frequently given in employment [and] re-employment situations in conjunction with [a] polygraph, and in promotion studies in the industry, as well as to inmates and job applicants in correctional facilities. According to Dr. Mitchell, the basic test measures 10 general possibilities for abnormality in psychological function. [11] It consists of 566 questions on a wide variety of subjects, each calling for a true or false answer. The first question is, I like Mechanics Magazine. Dr. Mitchell further explained that the MMPI has several built-in validity scales which determine the extent to which the test is accurately measuring the traits it purports to measure. These scales, he said, help detect whether the taker is attempting to lie or appear in a falsely virtuous light. Dr. Mitchell indicated that the test probably has a competence level of point nine for normal persons, whereas the usual standard in psychological testing is point seven and above. Dr. Mitchell agreed with counsel's lay assessment that the test has better than a 70 percent chance of being right in such circumstances. However, the witness also acknowledged that the test is completely invalid when given to disturbed or psychotic individuals. One of Dr. Mitchell's patients, an admitted child molester, had tested within normal limits on the MMPI. Dr. Mitchell described the MCMI on direct examination as follows: it was copyrighted in 1976, and had achieved widespread acceptance in the three or four years preceding trial. It is widely used in Kern County, but less frequently at the national level. It overlaps the MMPI in diagnosing degree of general psychopathology, and is designed to identify symptoms in the format of the D.S.M. III [American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition]. [12] His reading of the MCMI manual and unspecified studies showed validity and reliability to be quite high and within accepted standards. (2) (See fn. 13.) After reviewing Grafton's test results, Dr. Mitchell interviewed her for two hours in jail, discussing the charges against all defendants. Based on his  individual interpretation  of the test and interview results, Dr. Mitchell was of the  professional opinion  that Grafton has a normal personality function, likely has [had] throughout her lifetime, and ... is falsely charged [13] in this matter. (Italics added.) He immediately clarified this last phrase to mean that Grafton has [ not ] engaged in the past in sexual deviancy of any kind ... [and] shows no indications of deviancy in any other personality function.... Especially [ in light of ] a low indication for antisocial or aggressive behavior, I must conclude that it is unlikely ... she would be involved in the events she's been charged with.  (Italics added.) He added that his opinion was based also on the results of similar examinations of Palomo, and his knowledge of the Grafton-Palomo relationship. On cross-examination by the prosecutor, Dr. Mitchell testified: neither he nor other qualified experts use the two tests as a lie detector to reach an absolute determination as to whether an individual is guilty of charged crimes. Rather, his opinion of Grafton was based upon a diagnostic process combining  many, many pieces of data,  including professional experience with other individuals in similar situations, knowledge of Grafton's and Palomo's test results, knowledge about the charges against them, and his personal assessments of them. (Italics added.) Dr. Mitchell said his examination of Grafton was extensive, such that the MMPI and MCMI were  not by any means the sole determinor  of his opinion. (Italics added.) Rather, it reflects, in many respects, a  subjective judgment  that is not based on  an absolute cut and dried scientific approach.  (Italics added.) The prosecutor then asked whether there are any studies in which known guilty people have been given the MMPI test ... in a child molest case, and their profile as a child molester appears on the ... test. Dr. Mitchell replied that there are studies which relate to general trends and characteristics of individuals with sexual deviancy, and their typical manner of scoring on this measure. Although he did not identify these studies by name, he was certain that most of them involved convicted offenders. Dr. Mitchell identified one MMPI measure of antisocial adjustment, the psychopathic deviant scale, as being commonly elevated in criminal populations and in sexual deviancy cases and problems. He also said that persons charged with molest[ation] are depressed because of their jail circumstance. When asked whether he was aware of any studies linking known child abusers to normal test results, Dr. Mitchell answered, no. Upon further questioning by the prosecutor, Dr. Mitchell stated that many studies had been conducted on factors influencing the reliability of both tests. That term, he said, refers to the extent to which test results will be repeated if the same person takes the test again under similar circumstances. According to Dr. Mitchell, countless unspecified studies indicate that persons under extreme psychological stress do not score reliably on the MMPI. Because Grafton self-administered the test in jail, Dr. Mitchell could not answer prosecution questions about her testing environment (e.g., timing of exam and possible consultation with others). When asked whether accepted medical procedure required him to personally monitor test administration, Dr. Mitchell simply said it depends upon the circumstances. When the prosecutor asked whether the scientific community generally accepts the MMPI as a valid measure of psychopathology, Dr. Mitchell said, yes, by all means it does. The prosecutor's attempts to discern the scope of Dr. Mitchell's knowledge in this regard were inconclusive. [14] At one point during cross-examination, defense counsel objected when the prosecutor characterized Dr. Mitchell as having testified that Grafton did not fit within the profile of a child molester. The court overruled the objection. Dr. Mitchell corrected the prosecutor's characterization, saying his actual opinion was that Grafton showed no  possibility for sexual deviancy in her personality profile.  (Italics added.) Following redirect examination and further argument by both counsel, the trial court excluded the proffered testimony. Adopting the prosecutor's terminology, the court reasoned that the defense had not met its burden under Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24, of establishing that a profile of a child molester is generally accepted in the scientific community, or that a person who does not fit the profile has not actually molested children. Grafton's counsel immediately urged the court to reconsider on grounds that Dr. Mitchell did not refer to, or rely upon, any profile. Counsel also insisted that if Dr. Mitchell were allowed to testify, he would eliminate all reference to the truth or falsity of the charges and focus only on the lack of sexual deviation. The court denied Grafton's request. Palomo's counsel then stated that he too intended to call Dr. Mitchell for the purpose of testifying that Palomo had tested within the range of normal heterosexuality. The court refused to allow the testimony on grounds that its exclusionary ruling applied to Palomo as well.