Opinion ID: 1442039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Dr. Block's Testimony

Text: Dr. Block testified that for there to be a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, the patient must exhibit five of eight specified current and long-term functioning characteristics and that defendant exhibited seven of the eight characteristics. After indicating that she had either reviewed or been given a summary of the police reports and was aware of the victim's head and vaginal injuries, defense counsel asked Dr. Block a question in the abstract: Now, could you explain how it is possible to commit acts which result in death and those kinds of injuries and not at the same time have a mental intent to kill? How is that possible, and if it is, how is it possible? Dr. Block began to answer, Yes, it's possible. People can often, due to various  At that point the prosecution objected that the question called for speculation and that the possibilities were countless and were irrelevant to the facts of the case. After argument outside the presence of the jury the court sustained the objection on the ground that the question was in the abstract and thus was irrelevant. Defense counsel apparently did not want to direct the question specifically to defendant's mental state in an effort to avoid allowing the prosecutor to ask about statements defendant had made to Dr. Block concerning his intent. (8) Defendant asserts that the question should have been allowed because it was a precursor to asking whether someone with a borderline personality disorder could commit such an act without harboring an intent to kill. Defendant did not, however, make this argument in the trial court, probably for the same reason that he was unwilling to be more specific in his question  fear of broadening the scope of cross-examination to include the subject of his statements to Dr. Block regarding intent. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling. (See People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1239 [270 Cal. Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251].) The question as posed was too abstract to be relevant to the question of defendant's mental condition or other factors listed in section 190.3. Moreover, even if the ruling had been erroneous, the error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the jury's special circumstance finding that defendant intended to kill Mrs. Vasquez.