Opinion ID: 1279175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Trial Court's Reasons For Refusal

Text: With respect to the proffered testimony of the forensic psychiatrist, the trial judge ruled: Well, the court isn't convinced that what was stated to Dr. McDonald by the defendant here clearly falls into the hearsay exception. And I state that for the reasons that I have previously expressed to counsel.[ [15] ]        I haven't been presented any evidence of any court's acceptance of the science of the battered child, what can be predicted from the battered child. I don't believe that Dr. McDonald's testimony is being offered as an admission against interest, although there may be an admission against interest contained in some of the things told to him or alleged to have been told to him by the defendant. And Mr. Carroll can't cross-examine the defendant as to what he has told the doctor, so I don't see where cross-examination is the great protector in this instance. I believe that the testimony and the opinions and conclusions of Dr. McDonald, as suggested by counsel, would invade the province of the jury. The jury, I believe, is to determine the reasonableness of any fears, and they should determine that by evidence of a person who testified as to the facts, the situation, and draw their conclusions. The court is sustaining the objections of the state to this testimony. (Emphasis added.) I read the trial court's comments to say that the proffered testimony is refused for the following reasons: 1. The testimony is irrelevant because the defendant did not plead insanity or some kind of diminished capacity; 2. It is hearsay; 3. No foundation evidence of the court's acceptance of the science of the battered child had been introduced; 4. The testimony would invade the province of the jury; 5. Under the facts of this case, the issue of reasonableness is for the jury and is not a proper subject for expert testimony.