Opinion ID: 1161781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: expert testimony on defendant's mental state at the time of the offense

Text: At trial, Dr. Otto Bendheim, psychiatrist, and Dr. Robert Block, psychologist, testified regarding defendant's mental condition. The defendant called both doctors. Dr. Bendheim testified: BY MR. RAYNAK [defendant's attorney] Q. Now, based on those character traits, were you able to make a general evaluation on his tolerance for stress, whether it would be higher, lower or the same as an average individual? A. People with that kind of character makeup are more likely to break down under stress. They have less resistance, less coping capacity. MR. RAYNAK: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Lynch, do you have any questions for the Doctor? MR. LYNCH: Just a few, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LYNCH: [for the State] Q. This is not an insanity defense case, is it? A. Well, because this question was asked, you know, whether I found him psychotic, as we call it, or insane, as the law calls it, and I did not find him insane. Q. So he knew what he was doing when he shot his girlfriend. A. Yes. Q. And he knew that it was wrong to shoot her. A. Yes. Defense counsel, claiming that the state had opened the door, sought permission to ask questions concerning other aspects of his mental condition at the time of the offense. He stated: The State has basically asked about his state of mind on the day of the offense by indicating whether or not he was insane or not insane. I think that the State has effectively opened the door to allow me to have Dr. Bendheim testify as to what this man was feeling on the day of the offense. The trial court denied defendant's request. Later Dr. Block testified on cross-examination by the state: BY MR. LYNCH: Q. Talking about Mr. Ortiz here, who you examined, based upon what you observed, the character traits that you observed, is it possible for a person such as Mr. Ortiz to be able to premeditate. MR. RAYNAK: Again I am going to object, Your Honor. I believe it's beyond Christiansen. THE COURT: I'm going to overrule that. I don't think Christiansen precludes the question of that nature in light of the fact that we first defined the possibility of him being impulsive and then defined what impulsive people can do or what causes them to be impulsive. Let me do this. Why don't you restate the question?       BY MR. LYNCH: Q. Could an impulsive type of person such as Mr. Ortiz be capable of premeditating? A. Yes. In cases involving an insanity defense, expert testimony concerning the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime is admissible. State v. McMurtrey, 136 Ariz. 93, 100, 664 P.2d 637, 644, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 858, 104 S.Ct. 180, 78 L.Ed.2d 161 (1983). However, in cases not involving an insanity defense, an expert witness ordinarily may not give an opinion concerning the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime. See State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. 32, 35-36, 628 P.2d 580, 583-84 (1981). In the instant case, the defendant had withdrawn his insanity defense. Even so, the defendant did not object to testimony by the psychiatrist that defendant knew right from wrong at the time of the crime. Moreover, such testimony was not prejudicial because the law presumes a defendant knows right from wrong at the time of the crime. A.R.S. § 13-502; see also State v. Berndt, 138 Ariz. 41, 45, 672 P.2d 1311, 1315 (1983). Defendant, however, wanted to question the expert witnesses about defendant's probable mental state and particularly his impulsivity at the time of the crime. In State v. Rivera , we noted the distinction that is drawn between a person's continuing general personality trait (about which expert testimony is admissible) and a person's probable state of mind at the time of the offense, which is for the jury to determine. State v. Rivera, 152 Ariz. 507, 514, 733 P.2d 1090, 1097 (1987). In Christensen we ruled that [a]n expert witness may not testify specifically as to whether a defendant was or was not acting reflectively at the time of a killing. Christensen, 129 Ariz. at 35-36, 628 P.2d at 583-84 (emphasis added). Instead, an expert witness can only testify as to the general tendency of the defendant to act without reflection, allowing the jury to determine the defendant's intent at the time of the alleged crime. See State v. Hallman, 137 Ariz. 31, 35, 668 P.2d 874, 878 (1983); State v. Christensen, 129 Ariz. at 35-36, 628 P.2d at 583-84; State v. Dickey, 125 Ariz. 163, 169, 608 P.2d 302, 307-08 (1980). Rivera, 152 Ariz. at 514, 733 P.2d at 1097. In the instant case, the court strictly followed Christensen and allowed testimony concerning the defendant's ability to reflect or premeditate generally, but not testimony concerning intent at the time of the crime. We believe that the questions asked Dr. Block concerning defendant's ability to premeditate were permissible because they focused on the defendant's general personality trait rather than his probable mental state at the time of the offense. We find no error.