Opinion ID: 1200797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Documents Relied on by Defense Expert.

Text: Dr. Kenneth Hjortsvang testified as a psychiatric expert witness for the defense at the penalty phase. In preparing his opinion in this case he interviewed defendant twice, and reviewed a mass of police reports, autopsy reports, transcripts, letters written by defendant, professional articles on the psychiatric mechanisms of child murderers, and other documents relating to the instant case as well as defendant's trial for the murder of his three children. Dr. Hjortsvang concluded defendant suffered from a mixed characteristic personality disorder  exhibiting traits of paranoia, schizoid personality, compulsive elements, and narcissism  and that he had planned to harm Lisa but not kill her. (14a) Defense counsel sought to have admitted into evidence various journal articles, and several letters written by defendant, upon which Dr. Hjortsvang had relied, in part, in making his evaluation. The trial court refused to formally admit the documents into evidence. Defendant claims the ruling denied him his right to present evidence relevant to his defense. Evidence Code section 802 provides, in pertinent part, that [a] witness testifying in the form of an opinion may state on direct examination the reasons for his opinion and the matter (including, in the case of an expert, his special knowledge, skill, experience, training and education) upon which it is based.... (Italics added.) Here, Dr. Hjortsvang did testify at some length about the many documents he reviewed in the course of his evaluation of defendant in this case. Nothing in Evidence Code section 802, however, requires a trial court to admit into evidence documentary or other evidence of matters relied on by an expert witness in forming his or her opinion. We have observed that `[w]here expert opinion evidence is offered, much must be left to the discretion of the trial court' ( People v. Cole [(1956)] 47 Cal.2d 99, 105 [301 P.2d 854, 56 A.L.R.2d 1435]). ( People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 373 [690 P.2d 709, 46 A.L.R.4th 1011].) It is well established that the court may, within its sound discretion, exclude the hearsay basis of an expert's opinion. (Evid. Code, § 352; see, e.g., People v. Fair (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 1303, 1310-1311 [250 Cal. Rptr. 486]; People v. Bowker (1988) 203 Cal. App.3d 385, 390 [249 Cal. Rptr. 886]; People v. Young (1987) 189 Cal. App.3d 891, 913 [234 Cal. Rptr. 819]; People v. Odom (1980) 108 Cal. App.3d 100, 115-116 [166 Cal. Rptr. 283] [exclusion of reports relied on by expert witness proper where expert testified about the reports].) (15) `While an expert may state on direct examination the matters on which he relied in forming his opinion, he may not testify as to the details of such matters if they are otherwise inadmissible. [Citations.] The rule rests on the rationale that while an expert may give reasons on direct examination for his opinions, including the matters he considered in forming them, he may not under the guise of reasons bring before the jury incompetent hearsay evidence. [Citation.]' ( People v. Coleman (1985) 38 Cal.3d 69, 92 [211 Cal. Rptr. 102, 695 P.2d 189].) (14b) No abuse of discretion is shown in the exclusion of the documents. Moreover, insofar as Dr. Hjortsvang testified about the critical portions of the documents and letters that informed his opinion, the admission of the documents themselves into evidence would have merely been cumulative. (See, e.g., People v. Milner, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 240.)