Opinion ID: 1372628
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propensity for Violence.

Text: (39) Defendant contends that the prosecution, over his objection, introduced through Dr. Soltz's testimony character evidence that was inadmissible because it was general in nature and did not relate to any statutory aggravating factor. The record reveals no objection on that ground. Rather, the prosecution's rebuttal witness, Dr. Soltz, stated that defendant had been arrested for attempted robbery. Defendant found this testimony misleading because the alleged crime was never offered as aggravating evidence in the prosecution's case-in-chief. In other words, the objection was to improper rebuttal testimony. Defendant moved for a mistrial and to strike the evidence; both motions were denied, but the court admonished the jury not to treat Dr. Soltz's statement as evidence that defendant had indeed attempted to commit a crime; rather, the jury could consider the statements only in evaluating the quality of the psychologist's opinion regarding defendant. The court's admonition was adequate.