Opinion ID: 852874
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Expert Witness Regarding Mitigation

Text: As a part of trial evidence, the court called Dr. Thomas Liffick as an expert witness to provide his evaluation of McManus's sanity at the time of the offense. McManus contends that the admission of Dr. Liffick's testimony is reversible error because it constituted a legal conclusion. In a videotaped deposition played for the jury, the prosecution questioned Dr. Liffick in relevant part as follows: [Prosecution.] As for the mental depression, the mild mental depression and the not liking to be alone, do you feel like those in any way mitigate his crime in this case? Tr. at 1307-08. McManus objected to the question. The trial court overruled the objection, and Dr. Liffick responded as follows: [Dr. Liffick.] You know,I  III just don't think that that mild degree of difficulty in the big picture to any significant degree would excuse these actions. Tr. at 1308. Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b) reads as follows: Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions. Dr. Liffick's testimony was in response to a question calling for a legal conclusion and inadmissible under Rule 704, and the court should have sustained the objection. Of course, an error in the admission of evidence is not ground for setting aside a conviction unless such erroneous admission appears inconsistent with substantial justice or affects the substantial rights of the parties. Ind. Trial Rule 61. Prior to Dr. Liffick, the court called Dr. David Hilton to examine McManus and evaluate his sanity at the time of the offense. Dr. Hilton testified as follows: [W]hen we reviewed the actual symptoms he was experiencing, they didn't seem to meet the necessary criteria to call it a major depression. It was most consistent with what I would consider an adjustment disorder. He was going through a difficult time. He had an impending divorce. He was under a lot of stress. Adjustment disorders generally are not felt to be severe enough to affect a person's perception to the point of justifying an insanity defense. He also gave a long-standing history of chronic low-grade depression. He basically had described himself as being depressed to some degree all of his adult life, and that is generally felt to be consistent with a disorder called Dysthymic Disorder or Dysthymia. Again, that's not a disorder that affects a person's perception to the point that they would not be able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her actions. Tr. at 1079-80. Dr. Hilton did not attempt to offer a legal conclusion. Both doctors shared the same medical opinion after evaluating McManus, and neither doctor stated that McManus's condition mitigated his crime. The likelihood that this question and the reply weighed for much in the jury's deliberations is minimal. We find the error harmless.