Opinion ID: 1121458
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Coleman's Testimony

Text: Defendant next contends that the trial court erred by permitting Dr. Lee Coleman (Coleman), a psychiatrist, to testify as a rebuttal witness for the prosecution during the guilt phase of the trial. Coleman testified regarding the doubtful value of certain psychiatric testimony offered by the defense experts, especially that offered by Dr. Raffle regarding defendant's state of mind at the time of the crimes. Defendant concedes that in a recent case we rejected similar objections to such testimony by the same Coleman. ( People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 728-731 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 838 P.2d 729].) Defendant's attempt to factually distinguish this adverse authority is without merit. Considerations similar to those expressed in our prior opinion lead us to conclude that the admission of Coleman's testimony was neither improper nor prejudicial. ( Ibid. ) Defendant also objects to Coleman's testimony on the ground that he was not qualified to give expert testimony on the subject of the unreliability of psychiatric testimony and that this subject is not a proper subject of expert testimony. These contentions lack merit. Based upon the facts elicited in voir dire of the witness, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Coleman's opinion testimony.