Opinion ID: 1388553
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Excluded Rebuttal Evidence

Text: (17) On cross-examination by defendant, both psychiatrists testified that they had never appeared as witnesses in the penalty phase of a capital trial and knew little about the evidence typically admitted therein. (See § 190.3.) Over the prosecutor's relevance objection, the witnesses were asked whether they had considered the seriousness of defendant's crimes, the possibility that a wide range of evidence might be introduced, and the possibility that a death sentence might be imposed before declaring defendant competent. Dr. Small explained that such considerations did not affect his determination that defendant was able to understand the proceedings and communicate rationally with counsel. Dr. Bryan said that, while the severity of possible sentences might increase defendant's mental strain during trial, he (Bryan) had taken this fact into account before finding defendant competent. After the People rested, defendant called an attorney, John Balliet, to the stand. Outside of the jury's presence, defendant argued that Balliet was an expert in California death penalty law and would testify about the kind of cooperation needed between a capital defendant and counsel, and the varieties of evidence admissible at the penalty phase. The prosecutor argued that Balliet's testimony was irrelevant because section 1367 does not differentiate among types of crimes or trials in defining competence. The court excluded the evidence under Evidence Code section 352. Defendant now argues that the court abused its discretion and violated his federal constitutional right to a fair trial. In defendant's view, Balliet's testimony should have been admitted because it deeply undermined the prosecution's mental evidence. We disagree. Both psychiatrists made it clear that the concerns Balliet might discuss did not affect their assessment of defendant's mental capacity to stand trial. And, nothing in the offer of proof indicated that Balliet would describe the particular facts or complexities of this case. The court could reasonably conclude that the probative value of Balliet's testimony was low, while the risk of undue delay and jury confusion was high. No error occurred.