Opinion ID: 2636899
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reference to prior violent act.

Text: Appellant contends that permitting the jury to hear that he had committed a prior violent act denied due process. His reference is to questions put to the psychiatrists asking what they had asked appellant about and whether he had admitted to them prior acts of violence. Assertedly, the inquiry was relevant to matters the experts considered in reaching their diagnosis and to appellant's credibility, as he had not told one of the experts about an incident near Puerto Rico in which, in what appellant claimed was self-defense, appellant had killed a man. As a claim of prosecutorial misconduct the claim lacks merit. Appellant concedes that the court had ruled that questions about the Puerto Rico incident itself would be unduly prejudicial and limited that aspect of the examination to asking whether appellant had told the expert about prior acts of violence. He also concedes that the court did so after the defense found unsatisfactory a proposal by the prosecutor to simply ask if appellant had failed to state significant matters of his history and whether that affected the diagnosis, a question the court approved if the witnesses were admonished that they should not refer to the prior killing. Defense counsel objected that permitting the question would bring out the fact that appellant had been involved in another act of violence, that evidence of such an act would be inadmissible, and would be prejudicial. The prosecutor countered that whether the expert had inquired into the subject was relevant to the adequacy of the psychiatric examination. Ultimately, the court ruled that the line of inquiry was permissible in the sanity phase to test the legitimacy of the psychiatrists' opinions on the defendant's sanity. [38] Moreover, before the experts were examined, the court permitted counsel to question Dr. Mills out of the presence of the jury to ensure that the evidence would be relevant and sufficiently probative. In that examination Dr. Mills testified that he assumed, but his notes did not confirm, that he had inquired about prior acts of violence when he interviewed appellant. Therefore, he had asked appellant about such an incident on the day before he testified, appellant had described the Puerto Rico incident which appellant said was an act of self-defense, and the information did not affect Dr. Mills's opinion. Had he had more time, however, he would have pursued the matter further, as information about any past significant acts of violence was potentially relevant. Following that examination of the witness, the judge stated that he could not conclude whether appellant had told Dr. Mills about the incident, and counsel would be permitted to inquire into whether appellant had told the experts about the Puerto Rico incident and another incident in which appellant had put his hands around the throat of Kelly Cluff. When the experts were questioned before the jury, Dr. Mills testified that he believed he had asked appellant about prior acts of violence and appellant had, in effect told him no. That type of information would be important in making an evaluation, but whether a person was violent may have nothing to do with whether the individual had a delusional disorder. When the prosecutor asked Dr. Rosenthal if appellant had described a violent act, the witness testified that appellant had told him about a violent act precipitated by the need for self-defense. Appellant had also told him that he had put his hands around the throats of girlfriends and frightened them. Dr. Rosenthal did not believe that conduct and an interest in torture suggested that sexual sadism would be an appropriate diagnosis. Dr. Satten did not ask about, but had considered, appellant's past violent acts, acts he understood were linked to gambling and would not have a bearing or link to the instant crimes. He learned of the acts from defense counsel. Dr. Kaldor, who had not been told about the violence when he first inquired, believed it was significant that appellant had not told him about the violent act in the first interview, but in the second interview admitted he had not told Dr. Kaldor the whole story and did make some disclosure. Dr. Bittle testified that it was important to him to know whether appellant had a history of participation in violent acts, had specifically asked appellant about that, and considered it significant that appellant had not related the same incident to him that he had described to Dr. Kaldor. If this is a claim that the court erred in admitting evidence, the claim also lacks merit. When an objection to evidence is raised under Evidence Code section 352, the trial court is required to weigh the evidence's probative value against the dangers of prejudice, confusion, and undue time consumption. Unless these dangers `substantially outweigh' probative value, the objection must be overruled. ( People v. Cudjo (1983) 6 Cal.4th 585, 609, 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635.) As is apparent, the court gave careful consideration to the potentially prejudicial impact of the line of questioning proposed by the prosecution and ultimately concluded that, as limited under the court's order, that impact was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. Moreover, the evidence was clearly relevant, both to whether appellant had been truthful with the examining psychiatrists and to whether their diagnoses should be accepted by the jury. The questions were within the scope of cross-examination permitted by Evidence Code section 721. A trial court exercises a grant of broad discretion in assessing whether the probative value of evidence outweighs its potential for prejudice. ( People v. Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.) As we noted above, an appellate court will not find an abuse of discretion in a ruling on admission or exclusion of evidence except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner. ( Ibid. ) The trial court did not abuse its discretion here in permitting the inquiry or admitting the evidence. ( People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1118, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384.)