Opinion ID: 1225502
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Denial of New Trial Motion Based on Newly Discovered Evidence

Text: (11a) At trial, the mainstay of the defense was the claim that defendant suffered from an organic brain disorder which, in combination with the excessive use of crack cocaine and the prolonged abuse of alcohol, made him incapable of premeditating and deliberating the killing of Norma Painter, the mental state required for a conviction of murder of the first degree. As part of its case, the defense presented expert testimony from two physicians  Drs. Rosenthal and Kowell  that tests of defendant using a BEAM machine substantiated the defense theory of an organic brain disorder. After the guilt and penalty phases of the trial had been completed, the jury's verdicts returned, and sentence imposed, the defense moved for a new trial on the ground that newly discovered evidence undermined the reliability of the verdicts and pointed to a different result. (See § 1181.) The new evidence consisted of the proffered testimony, in affidavit form, of Dr. Robert Bittle, formerly the medical director of Sierra Vista Hospital and a member of the hospital's medical executive committee. To understand the purported significance of Dr. Bittle's affidavit, an account of the role of the BEAM device and conflicting expert testimony at trial concerning its diagnostic value is needed. As noted, at trial the defense contended a brain abnormality prevented defendant from premeditating and deliberating his criminal acts. Defendant sought to establish that mental defense through the expert testimony of Dr. Kowell, a neurologist, and Dr. Rosenthal, a psychiatrist. Both testified the BEAM machine test results were accurate and reliable and supported the defense claim that defendant suffered from a functional brain disorder. On rebuttal, the People called Dr. Adelberg, a neurologist, who testified that the BEAM machine test results were not reliable. He based his opinion in part on his experience with a BEAM machine and its test results at Sierra Vista Hospital, where he served as a member of the medical executive committee. According to Dr. Adelberg's testimony, the medical committee of the hospital subsequently recommended that the BEAM device be removed, a recommendation, Dr. Adelberg testified, based on the opinion that the device posed a risk to patient treatment: Its unreliability often led to misdiagnoses and, as a consequence, unnecessary or inappropriate treatment. It was to counter this testimony of Dr. Adelberg that, on surrebuttal, the defense called Dr. Robert Bittle. A former director of the medical executive committee at Sierra Vista, Bittle testified that BEAM test results were reliable. Further, he testified the BEAM machine was removed from Sierra Vista not because of frequent misdiagnoses, but because the medical committee's new director did not support keeping the device: Its high cost compared to its limited utility among Sierra Vista's patient population did not justify its retention. The gist of Dr. Bittle's affidavit in support of defendant's new trial motion was the assertion that, in his testimony at trial, Dr. Adelberg's opinion as to why the BEAM machine was removed from Sierra Vista was not only incorrect, but known to Dr. Adelberg to be false at the time he testified; that is, that Adelberg has perjured himself. According to Dr. Bittle's new trial affidavit, the reason the BEAM machine was removed from Sierra Vista Hospital was not the result of misdiagnoses, but financial reasons. In its bench ruling on defendant's new trial motion, the trial court concluded the Bittle evidence did not qualify as newly discovered: I think the defense was aware of Dr. Adelberg's testimony. They knew exactly what he was going to testify to, and with proper exercise of diligence they could have ... foreseen that. In any event, Judge Ridgeway remarked, I don't think the result would be any different because in my view, their testimony really would be cumulative. There was a disagreement between Dr. Adelberg and Dr. [Rosenthal].... This is a situation where we're talking about credibility, and the jury found Dr. Adelberg's testimony more credible than the defense witness. [¶] Furthermore, I do not think the test results of the BEAM machine were the persuasive factor in this case, given the weight of the prosecution's case. In short, I don't think that the result would have been any different.... Accordingly, the motion for new trial based on the Adelberg testimony is denied. That determination lay well within the trial court's discretion, the standard under which we review a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial under section 1181. Subdivision 8 of that provision authorizes trial judges to order a new trial when new evidence is discovered material to the defendant, and which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at trial. (12) Speaking of this provision in People v. Delgado (1993) 5 Cal.4th 312 [19 Cal. Rptr.2d 529, 851 P.2d 811], we said the trial court's ruling on such a motion `rests so completely within [its] discretion that its action will not be disturbed unless a manifest and unmistakable abuse of discretion clearly appears.' ( Id. at p. 328.) (11b) As the trial court noted in denying the defense motion, the testimony of both Dr. Kowell and Dr. Rosenthal conflicted with Dr. Adelberg's. The new, posttrial evidence proffered by Dr. Bittle's affidavit did little more than reinforce the views of Dr. Rosenthal given in his testimony at trial, an opinion the jury had already heard. It is true that, as defendant points out, neither Rosenthal nor Kowell testified specifically about the reasons why the BEAM machine was removed from the Sierra Vista Hospital, but that is not quite the point at issue. Dr. Bittle himself testified at trial for the defense that he personally [was] not aware of [his] misdiagnosis or misrepresentation in terms of treating patients [at Sierra Vista], as far as the use of the BEAM as a diagnostic tool or technique. This trial testimony thus directly contradicted Dr. Adelberg's testimony. Had misdiagnoses with the BEAM machine come to his attention, it [u]ndoubtedly would have been of concern to him. Dr. Bittle testified that for something to be abused like that would be grossly unacceptable. Moreover, Dr. Bittle testified that he would have been aware of instances of misdiagnosis or mistreatment at Sierra Vista as a result of the BEAM machine. It is thus clear from the record of the testimony at trial on this point that the opinion of Dr. Bittle differed from that of Dr. Adelberg so far as incidents of misdiagnosis and mistreatment attributable to use of the BEAM machine were concerned. And the jury, of course, heard the testimony of both medical experts. As the trial judge remarked, the jury must have resolved the conflict for itself on credibility grounds: There was a disagreement between Dr. Adelberg and Dr. [Rosenthal].... This is a situation where we're talking about credibility, and the jury found Dr. Adelberg's testimony more credible than the defense witness. There was no error, we conclude, in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for a new trial.