Opinion ID: 2276541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Fulero's Testimony Bears on the Issue of Guilt

Text: We next turn to Appellant's contention that Fulero's testimony did not trigger RCr 7.24(3)(B)(i) because it did not bear on an issue of guilt. Here, as explained above, Fulero's testimony addressed police tactics during interrogations, and was offered by Appellant, coupled with his own testimony, so as to put the truthfulness of his confession in doubt. We recognize that a plain reading of RCr 7.24(3)(B)(i) does not confine the rule to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense, but is instead applicable when the expert testimony relates to the broader issues of guilt or punishment. However, our precedent reveals that the testimony cannot be tangentially related to the issue of guilt, but, conversely must be direct. In Powell, we were called on to answer whether RCr 7.24 is triggered when a defendant moves to suppress certain evidence on the ground that he was mentally incompetent at the time he made incriminating statements. 185 S.W.3d at 630. In finding that RCr 7.24 did not apply, we held that the rule is applicable only when a defendant intends to offer evidence that directly bears on the issues of guilt or punishment, not in a situation such as this where evidence of the defendant's mental instability relates to whether other evidence is to be barred from trial and therefore has only a tangential bearing on guilt. Id. (emphasis added). And although the Court of Appeals distinguished Powell on procedural grounds, we expressly addressed whether a defendant's mental status at the time he makes incriminating statements directly relates to the issue of guilt and concluded: such evidence is significantly removed from any ultimate decision as to guilt or punishment. . . . Id. Similarly, here, we are called on to answer whether Fulero's testimony directly relates to the issue of Appellant's guilt, and thus whether it falls within the ambit of RCr 7.24(3)(B)(i). We again find, as we did in Powell, that the testimony regarding Appellant's state of mind at the time he made incriminating statements does not directly relate to the issue of his guilt so as to trigger RCr 7.24(3)(B)(i). Therefore, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's exclusion of the evidence on this ground.