Opinion ID: 2546413
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Exclusion of Defendant's Drug Use

Text: Defendant testified that he used PCP, marijuana and LSD, and drank heavily. When being questioned by defense counsel, the following exchange occurred: Q. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: When you were using drugs, did it have an effect on your life? A. [DEFENDANT]: Yes, definitely. Q. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: How did it [a]ffect your life? [THE PROSECUTOR]: I object as calling for an expert opinion that this witness is not qualified to give. THE COURT: As formed, I am going to have to sustain that. Defendant contends that by so ruling, the trial court violated his Eighth Amendment rights and analogous rights under the California Constitution by preventing him from presenting relevant mitigating evidence of his character and background. He claims the trial court's ruling prevented the jury from learning important mitigating evidence about [defendant] including the effect of [defendant's] drug use on his life. We agree the trial court erred by sustaining the prosecutor's objection. Defendant's opinion as to how drug abuse destroyed his young life was undoubtedly relevant and admissible as mitigating evidence and not excludable as improper expert opinion. The exclusion of mitigating evidence violates the constitutional requirement that a capital defendant must be allowed to present all relevant evidence to demonstrate he deserves a sentence of life rather than death. [Citations.] Exclusion of such evidence ... does not automatically require reversal, but is instead subject to the standard of review announced in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, that is, the error is reversible unless it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Fudge, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1117, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321, 875 P.2d 36; see Skipper v. South Carolina (1986) 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1.) Although the trial court erred, any error was harmless because the trial court immediately thereafter overruled follow-up objections and allowed defendant to testify to his memory problems, his using his girlfriend's money to buy drugs, his failure to support his children as a result of his drug habit, and his failure to hold a regular job. He also was allowed to testify that his grades began slipping when he was drinking and that he then stopped going to school altogether. Because defendant was allowed to present the excluded evidence after all, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.