Opinion ID: 1699278
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Evidence concerning defendant's sanity at the time of the offense.

Text: Finally, defendant claims the trial court should not have admitted testimony from both Dr. Ware on cross-examination and rebuttal testimony from witness Dr. George Seiden (who also examined defendant to determine his capacity to proceed), indicating he knew right from wrong at the time he committed the offense. The record reveals that on cross-examination, the State asked Dr. Ware if he believed defendant knew his conduct was wrong when he committed the offense even if he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and the witness responded affirmatively. Similarly, on rebuttal the State elicited testimony from Dr. Seiden who opined that at the time of the offense, defendant was not suffering from any mental disease or defect that would have interfered with his ability to know the rightness or wrongness of his behavior. (R., vol.XV, p. 3687). Once more, we point out the defense introduced Dr. Ware's report during its case-in-chief at the penalty phase. That report stated that while defendant possibly was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, [he] was clearly aware of his behavior and the significance of his behavior at the time that he committed the offense. D. Exh. D-1, p. 4. While the State may not introduce new issues or facts or reserve part of its case-in-chief for rebuttal, see State v. George, 95-0110 (La.10/16/95), 661 So.2d 975, 981, the fact that rebuttal evidence may incidentally strengthen the State's case does not render it inadmissible. State v. Huizar, 414 So.2d 741, 750 (La.1982); State v. Howard, 45 So. 260 (La.1908). See also LA.CODE EVID. ANN. art. 611(B); LA.CODE EVID. ANN. art. 611(E). Accordingly, neither the testimony elicited on cross-examination nor that introduced on rebuttal was improper. This argument lacks merit.