Opinion ID: 2625842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dr. Ofshe's Trial Testimony

Text: ¶ 39 Blakley contends that Dr. Ofshe should have been allowed to testify at trial that the confession was involuntary and coerced. For reasons similar to those set forth above, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding these opinions. Dr. Ofshe provided the jury with ample evidence concerning the tactics used by the police. He was allowed to testify that portions of the interrogation transcript demonstrated coercive tactics and offers of leniency. ¶ 40 On cross-examination at trial, the state asked Dr. Ofshe about his questioning of Blakley. For example, the prosecutor inquired: Did you ask him about any mental condition he might have? and Did you ask him about any counseling he had in the past? ¶ 41 Blakley contends that the state thereby opened the door to testimony concerning his statements to Dr. Ofshe. As the trial court noted, however, the prosecutor merely asked the doctor about the areas and types of questions he had propounded to the defendant. The state did not inquire into the defendant's answers, so the door was never really opened. Moreover, the defense never presented the trial court with a legal basis for admitting Blakley's statements about his own mental condition at the time of the crime. Thus, the issue was waived.