Opinion ID: 2552553
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Opinion of Defendant's Pediatrician Regarding Canada Trip

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court erred in sustaining, on relevance grounds, the prosecution's objections to the testimony of his pediatrician that his academic development was set back by a long trip to Canada the family took when he was in fifth grade, causing him to leave school on March 31, 1986. As described, defendant's pediatrician, Carter R. Wright, M.D., testified on defendant's behalf, explaining that defendant would not breast-feed and failed to gain weight normally. Undertaking direct examination of Dr. Wright on later events in defendant's life, defense counsel asked broadly, What were you[r] impression[s]? about the then-pending trip to Canada and, more narrowly, Did you have some sense of whether ... this was a wellplanned out trip to Canada? and Did Markita tell you whether she was planning to stay in Canada or just visit? The prosecutor objected to all three questions on the ground that they were irrelevant and did not call for a medical opinion. He also objected to the third question on hearsay grounds. After the third question, the trial court asked counsel for the purpose of the proffered testimony. Defense counsel argued that the questions called for admissible testimony about his observation of the ... instability in the family and this plan that they had. The court, which had already sustained objections to the first two questions, sustained the objection to the third as well. It appears that the court's rulings were based on the irrelevance of the proffered evidence. On appeal, defendant states that he intended to prove that the trip to Canada disrupted his education and harmed his later performance in school, setbacks that could have generated sympathy among the jurors. He argues that the testimony would have been admissible as an expert medical opinion and a proper lay opinion, and that it was relevant as mitigating evidence. Defendant's claim that the trial court improperly failed to allow Dr. Wright's expert medical testimony is without merit. If a witness is testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is: [ķ] (a) Related to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact. (Evid.Code, § 801.) Counsel's questions of Dr. Wright did not call for a expert opinion. Counsel asked Dr. Wright about his impressions and his sense about the pending trip to Canada, and explained to the court that counsel was seeking Dr. Wright's observation. These questions were not directed toward medical expertise. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion (see People v. Pollock (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1153, 1172, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 89 P.3d 353) in ruling that the questions did not call for a expert medical opinion. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion ( People v. Carter, supra, 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1166-1167, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 759, 117 P.3d 476) in ruling that the questions were irrelevant insofar as they called for Dr. Wright's lay opinion, i.e., the answers would not have been helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony (Evid. Code, § 800), and would not have had any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action (Evid. Code, § 210). As a lay witness, testimony from Dr. Wright that a trip to Canada must have been disruptive to defendant's educational development would have amounted to little more than conjecture, and would not have been helpful to understand his testimony about defendant's childhood difficulties. We cannot say that the court was unreasonable in concluding that counsel's questions called for irrelevant answers. We find no basis to disturb its rulings.