Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Withdrawal of NGI Plea

Text: Prior to the commencement of the sanity phase, defendant sought an advance ruling from the trial court to limit the scope of cross-examination if he testified. He wanted to testify only to matters regarding his childhood and his upbringing and to preclude the prosecution from cross-examining him about the murder. The trial court declined to issue an advisory opinion regarding the scope of cross-examination in advance of hearing defendant's direct testimony. Defendant claimed the court left him no choice but to withdraw his plea, but the court refused to accept the withdrawal. Defendant began to withdraw his plea a second time, but then again equivocated, and the trial court again declined to proceed unless defendant's withdrawal was unequivocal. The prosecutor, citing People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 259 Cal.Rptr. 669, 774 P.2d 698, argued that defendant should be allowed to withdraw his NGI plea if there was no doubt as to his sanity and the examining psychiatrists unanimously agreed he was sane. Without objection, the trial court unsealed the reports of Drs. Vicary and Sharma, and read portions of the reports into the record. The court noted that both Vicary and Sharma concluded that defendant was legally sane at the time of the commission of the offenses. Defendant was then allowed to withdraw his NGI plea. The court stated it was satisfied that defendant understood the nature of his plea and that he furthermore understood his right to a sanity phase trial, and that he has effectively and knowingly and intelligently given up that right and personally withdrawn his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Defendant argues that the trial court's refusal to give him an advance ruling on the scope of cross-examination coerced him into withdrawing his NGI plea. He also suggests the withdrawal was involuntary because there were doubts as to his sanity. Neither claim has merit. Defendant's withdrawal of his plea was not coerced by the trial court's adverse ruling on his motion to limit the scope of cross-examination because there was no such ruling. Rather, the trial court properly declined to provide a ruling in advance of defendant's testimony. Defendant had no inherent right to a binding advance ruling which would spare him the necessity of raising specific objections before the jury. ( People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 513, 250 Cal.Rptr. 550, 758 P.2d 1081; People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 178-179, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 342, 841 P.2d 862.) Regarding his second claim, unlike People v. Merkouris (1956) 46 Cal.2d 540, 553, 297 P.2d 999, upon which defendant relies, there was no conflict among the experts regarding defendant's sanity at the time of the offense. (See People v. Bloom, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 1214, 259 Cal.Rptr. 669, 774 P.2d 698 [where there is no doubt in the trial court's mind of defendant's sanity, and the reports of the examining psychiatrists agree he was sane, defendant should be allowed to withdraw his NGI plea].) Accordingly, the withdrawal of his NGI plea was not involuntary.