Opinion ID: 1112237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: expert testimony rulings.

Text: Estrada maintains that Judge Mossman arbitrarily excluded Dr. Murphy's testimony while allowing Dr. Hall to opine that Officer Taguma was very believable (though Judge Mossman had specifically warned State not to let Dr. Hall do this). State answers that 1) Dr. Murphy's testimony (that Officer Taguma had aggressive tendencies not caused by any PTSD) was cumulative of what Dr. Hall later stated; and 2) Judge Mossman promptly struck Dr. Hall's improper statements and later admonished the jury to disregard all stricken evidence. Judge Mossman excluded Dr. Murphy's testimony when the latter could not conclude that Officer Taguma had a propensity to violence based upon a reasonable medical certainty. On direct examination, Dr. Hall testified: Q Dr. Hall, as a result of your testing and interviews, do you have any conclusions as to Keith Taguma and PTSD? A As a result of everything, I find him very believable in regards to what came out about the PTSD from himself, the testing, and other sources. MR. BETTENCOURT: I move to strike the answer as nonresponsive. THE COURT: I will sustain. I will grant that motion. Transcript, January 29, 1986 at 140. [8] Dr. Hall later concluded on cross-examination: Q (By Mr. Bettencourt) Dr. Hall, is it correct that PTSD may aggravate any prior characterological conditions or symptoms but does not create them? A It can do both. Transcript, February 3, 1986 at 28 (emphasis added). It is presumed that a jury will heed a trial court's instruction. State v. Perez, 64 Haw. 232, 638 P.2d 335 (1981). Judge Mossman later ordered the jury to disregard all stricken evidence. Based upon Dr. Hall's single improper statement, Judge Mossman's timely striking of the disputed comment, plus the subsequent jury instruction, no prejudice resulted. Judge Mossman had the discretion to exclude Dr. Murphy's testimony if the latter lacked an expert basis to conclude that Officer Taguma's abusive behavior resulted from character disorders and not PTSD. State v. Rodrigues, 67 Haw. 70, 679 P.2d 615, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1078, 105 S.Ct. 580, 83 L.Ed.2d 691 (1984). It appears completely arbitrary and without reason, however, to exclude Dr. Murphy's opinions while admitting Dr. Hall's findings on the same subject. See State v. Sacoco, 45 Haw. 288, 367 P.2d 11 (1961). Judge Mossman seems to have misunderstood the gist of Dr. Murphy's testimony: it did not deal with Officer Taguma's propensity for aggression or violence. Instead, Dr. Murphy's statements would have directly countered State's position explaining Officer Taguma's conduct at Queen's Hospital. Having admitted Dr. Hall's testimony, it was an abuse of discretion for Judge Mossman to have barred Dr. Murphy from taking the stand. The jury should have heard both experts' testimony on PTSD. See State v. Summers, 62 Haw. 325, 614 P.2d 925 (1980).