Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Challenge the Qualifications of Dr. Rath as an Expert

Text: The prosecution called Dr. Craig Rath, a licensed clinical psychologist at Patton State Hospital, to testify as an expert witness regarding two principal matters: (1) memory repression by someone who has experienced a traumatic event, and (2) an emotional about-face and showing of remorse on the part of someone who has just committed a sexual assault. Rath's testimony apparently was intended to assist the jury in understanding certain aspects of Amy's testimony. On cross-examination, Rath acknowledged that he was unfamiliar with defendant or the surviving victim, not having interviewed either individual. On appeal, defendant contends that trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to challenge Rath's qualifications or competence to testify as an expert regarding the matters about which he testified, particularly his testimony concerning the common conduct of binge rapists. Defendant's claim cannot be sustained on appeal. The record on appeal fails to disclose that trial counsel lacked a tactical basis for declining to challenge Dr. Rath's qualifications or competence to testify as an expert, and counsel's decision to refrain from doing so was not one for which there could be no satisfactory explanation. (See People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th 264, 266, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134; People v, Wilson, supra, 3 Cal.4th 926, 936, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212; People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d 572, 581, 189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144; see also People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 490-491, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 558, 882 P.2d 249 [Because the decision whether to object is inherently tactical, the failure to object to evidence will seldom establish incompetence.].) At the time of defendant's trial, Rath had performed more than 2,000 courtdirected psychological evaluations and had testified a couple of hundred times in nine counties in California and four other states, and there is no indication in the record that he did not have expertise with regard to the matters to which he testified. Thus, on the record before us, we perceive no deficiency on counsel's part in failing to challenge Dr. Rath's qualifications.