Opinion ID: 2508855
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Exclusion of Jail Deputy's Opinion

Text: Keith Biggers was one of two deputy sheriffs who testified to defendant's good behavior in Sacramento County jail while awaiting and during trial. Defense counsel also asked Biggers whether he had an opinion as to Mr. Holloway's adjustment in prison if he was to be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The prosecutor objected to the question as calling for evidence beyond the scope of this witness's experience. At the bench, the prosecutor argued there was no foundation to show the deputy had any experience with life prisoners or inmates in state prison generally. The court agreed the witness did not have the basis, expertise to give an expert opinion on this subject. The court denied defense counsel's request that he at least be permitted to ask about adjustment to a structured setting, observing, I don't know that he knows that either. Defendant contends the deputy, who had four years' experience as a jail guard, was clearly qualified to speak about adjustment of inmates to a structured setting, so that the court, in excluding his testimony, abused its discretion and deprived defendant of his Eighth Amendment right to present all relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment. ( Skipper v. South Carolina (1986) 476 U.S. 1, 4, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1.) We disagree. Defendant failed to show the deputy had any experience or other source of expertise as to inmates' adjustment to and life in prison under life sentences; the court correctly refused to allow him to opine on the subject. Phrasing the question in terms of a structured setting would not have improved it, as the only structured setting with which the jury was concerned was state prison, to which they were being asked to sentence defendant for life. Without experience or study of prison adjustment, the deputy's opinion on this subject would have been highly unreliable. In excluding this unreliable opinion, the court neither abused its discretion under state law nor deprived defendant of any right under the federal Constitution. ( People v. Phillips (2000) 22 Cal.4th 226, 238, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 58, 991 P.2d 145; People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1175-1176, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 892, 938 P.2d 950; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 837-839, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 819 P.2d 436.)