Opinion ID: 3178473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State’s Cross-Appeal Claims

Text: Finally, the State has also raised two arguments on cross-appeal concerning the penalty phase, which we also address because they may become an issue in Cardona’s next retrial. First, the State claims that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit its mitigation rebuttal expert witness to testify during the penalty phase. We agree. This was error because the State adequately proffered and was entitled to present its expert’s testimony for the limited purpose of rebutting testimony of Cardona’s expert witness as to her mental state. To the extent the trial court excluded it on the grounds that it would violate Cardona’s - 26 - Fifth Amendment rights, it was an abuse of discretion. See Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 423-24 (1987) (stating that the State may introduce the results of a court-ordered mental health examination for the limited purpose of rebutting a mental-status defense); see also Kansas v. Cheever, 134 S. Ct. 596, 601 (2013) (clarifying that Buchanan is applicable where the defendant presented psychiatric evidence, and is not limited to where the mental state issue is raised as an affirmative defense). The other cross-appeal issue that we address is the State’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury on and finding the “no significant criminal history” mitigator without giving the State the opportunity to introduce evidence to rebut the “no significant criminal history” mitigator. We likewise agree because Cardona did not assert this mitigator until after the presentation of evidence had concluded, and by making that assertion, she opened the door to allow the State to rebut it, so the State should not have been denied the opportunity to do so. Thus, we conclude that with respect to both cross-appeal claims raised by the State, the trial court erred.