Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Court's Ruling Limiting Use of the Report

Text: After Scott testified, the court took up the admissibility of the Gaughan report in detail. Defendant does not challenge the court's rulings on this occasion, but they are a central part of the relevant proceedings. The court noted that the defense had presented aspects of defendant's personality, character, and state of mind that opened the door to other such aspects that might be inconsistent with or in addition to the witnesses' testimony. The court said it would admonish the jury to consider the report only for assessing these character and mental state issues, and not for the truth of the matters stated or as evidence in aggravation. Defense counsel renewed his objection to the use of the report in rebuttal, arguing that he had not put on psychiatric evidence, but merely evidence of defendant's troubled youth. Counsel contended the Gaughan report was improper rebuttal and unduly prejudicial. He said the report was intended to be confidential, had erroneously become part of the court file in Arizona, and provided a distorted picture of defendant based only on two interviews. He insisted that rebutting the testimony of family members with a psychiatric report was simply not proper, and violated defendant's due process rights. The prosecutor responded that the Gaughan report was relevant to show that defendant's problems stemmed not just from his family life and experiences in the trailer park and church, but also from that fact that he was leading this secret life. The prosecutor intended to use only the statements defendant made to Dr. Gaughan, not the psychiatric aspects of the report. The court reiterated its finding that in light of the defense witnesses' testimony, the report was admissible both to show the extent of those witnesses' knowledge of defendant and to give a more complete picture by showing at least additional areas of his personality and character and intent that were not touched upon in direct testimony. Dr. Gaughan's conclusions about defendant would not be admissible, unless the defense introduced its own psychiatric evidence. The court then considered the various incidents defendant described to Dr. Gaughan. It ruled that the following incidents were admissible for purposes of rebuttal: defendant's involve[ment] in window peeking; his interest in pornography; his success with minor shoplifting and resulting feelings of control and self-esteem; his fantasies of a lifestyle as a successful outlaw; his attraction to movies with violent themes including sexual coercion; his fantasies about violent relationships with women and rapes; his plans for more expensive burglaries and initial steps he took toward them, which gave him a sense of power and a thrill; [12] his statement that success at thievery became one of the few things he was able to feel capable and proud about; his increased drinking and sexual compulsions; his stealing of trivial items to feel a sense of revenge and control over merchants he felt had wronged him; and an incident in which he had planned to rape a woman who refused to have a relationship with him. [13] The court deemed the following statements in the report inadmissible as irrelevant or unduly prejudicial: defendant's feeling over the year before his arrest that he was a master thief educated with information that he obtained through the movies; a statement that he began to do things to see if he could get away with them; the increasing frequency of his thefts; his growing belief that he could lead the lifestyle of a master outlaw modeled after figures in the movies; an incident involving two prostitutes that did not develop as he had envisioned, after which he went looking for them with a loaded shotgun; an incident in which he shot at someone in a vehicle; detailed discussions of his mental state with regard to the charged offenses; and a statement that when he left Arizona he felt he had crossed the line and started hunting for a rape victim when he arrived in Los Angeles. The court also denied the prosecutor's request to confirm with Dr. Gaughan that the movie that influenced defendant the most was Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (Maljack Productions 1986).