Opinion ID: 2265144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Selective Use by the Prosecution of Defendant's Answers to the MMPI Examination

Text: Defendant argues that the prosecutor's cross-examination of Dr. Greenfield was improper in another respect. Defendant's argument concerns portions of a personality test that the expert administered to him. Again, we find that the prosecutor's questions were properly within the scope of cross-examination as they concerned the materials on which Dr. Greenfield had based his expert opinion. As part of his testimony concerning defendant's personality, Dr. Greenfield recounted the results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) examination administered to defendant. The test consisted of 566 questions to which defendant was asked to respond either true or false. Subjects covered included the test-taker's symptomatology, interpersonal relations, depression, social withdrawal, aggression, and personal interest. Dr. Greenfield used the results of the test to reach a conclusion about defendant's addiction to cocaine and his mental state at the time the relevant crimes had been committed. The test has four validity scales used to identify persons who are overly defensive during the test, those who try to look more emotionally disturbed than they are, those trying to look better than they are, and those who are indecisive. During cross examination, the prosecutor asked Dr. Greenfield about a statement in a psychological report he had submitted with respect to defendant, which stated that `his MMPI responses gave a profile of a very troubled and agitated individual whose response pattern showed a trend toward exaggeration in the negative direction ( i.e., `faking bad').' That comment referred to the possibility that defendant had attempted, through dishonest answers, to make himself look more emotionally imbalanced than he actually was. In response to that questioning, Dr. Greenfield said that his previous conclusion had been incorrect and that he had changed his opinion to one that on the exam defendant was not faking good or bad. The prosecutor then pursued that line of questioning to determine what basis Dr. Greenfield had for changing his conclusion. The prosecutor asked what defendant's responses were to a few of the questions from the test. Q. And his actual answers to question No. 45, I do not always tell the truth. That answer indicates he answered that true, doesn't it, Doctor? A. Yes, that's true. Q. No. 71, I think a great many people exaggerate their misfortune in order to gain the sympathy and help of others. He answered that true, didn't he, Doctor? A. Yes, that's true. Q. No. 93, I think most people would lie to get ahead. He answered that true, didn't he, Doctor? A. Yes. Q. No. 111, I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it. He answered that false, didn't he, Doctor? A. Yes. Q. 128, The sight of blood neither frightens me nor makes me sick. He answered that true, didn't he, Doctor? A. Yes. Q. Did you take these things into consideration in determining whether or not Mr. Martini might be malingering or exaggerating his condition to you in order to help himself? A. As I say, there are two responses to that. The question of malingering came up yesterday and malingering is always possible. On the other hand, one of the reasons for using the MMPI is to take advantage of that so-called validity scale to indicate whether a person is faking at all, and when you take the 566 items as a totality and comparing them  by this point tests had been run for a long time. I think it was first copywrited [sic] in 1943 and it's been standardized on millions of people, so if you take into account the millions of people on whom its been standardized and compare these validity profiles with the standardized population, that gives you a good handle on what person is faking to look good or faking to look bad on this particular test. So the answer to your question is it's certainly possible, but the MMPI report certainly doesn't support that. Q. No. 250, I don't blame anybody for trying to grab anything they can get in this world. He answered that true? A. That's correct. Q. No. 251, I have had blank spells in which my activities were interrupted and I did not know what was going on around me. No. 251, he answered that false, didn't he? A. Yes. Q. But he told you in the very first interview there were periods of time when he didn't know what happened to him in January, 1989, didn't he? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever think he was lying about that, Doctor? A. As I say, it's certainly possible, but taking everything together I think that that was a true statement. Q. 475, When I am cornered I tell that portion of the truth which is not likely to hurt me. He said true, didn't he Doctor? A. That's correct. Defense counsel made no objection to that portion of the prosecutor's cross-examination. In her summation, the prosecutor returned to defendant's answers to the MMPI questions. All you have from what Dr. Greenfield tells us is what John Martini told him and what he knows of addicts himself. Of course this is the same man who, when he gave those tests to Mr. Martini, first scored them as, I think, `faking good' then said no, they were faking bad. After a while you began to wonder how meaningful the tests were. Of course there were some particular questions that I asked him about, and the reason I asked him is that I said, `Doctor, did this change your opinion as to whether or not John Martini was malingering or exaggerating or lying to you about his cocaine addiction?' His actual answer to one of the questions, `I do not always tell the truth,' he said that was true. But the doctor said that didn't change his opinion that John Martini was under the influence that day, and that was the end of it. `I think a great many people exaggerate their misfortune in order to gain the sympathy and help of others,' and he answered that one true but the doctor said that didn't change his opinion. He said, `I think most people would lie to get ahead.' He said that was true. But the doctor said that didn't change his opinion. Defendant made no objection but now argues that although the ostensible reason for asking the question was to determine the basis of Dr. Greenfield's opinion, the prosecutor's real motive was to elicit damaging testimony about defendant's moral character. In addition, defendant argues that the court should have applied the weighing test articulated in Evidence Rule 4 to bar the answers in light of their limited probative value and significant potential for prejudice. Defendant contends that the questions were so prejudicial as to warrant reversal of both his convictions and sentence. The State argues that the questions were entirely proper attempts to ascertain the basis of Dr. Greenfield's opinion. We agree. That the scope of cross-examination is a matter for the control of the trial court and an appellate court will not interfere with such control unless clear error and prejudice are shown is well settled. State v. Murray, 240 N.J. Super. 378, 394, 573 A. 2d 488 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 334, 585 A. 2d 350 (1990). In addition, an expert witness is always subject to searching cross-examination as to the basis of his opinion. Glenpoint Assocs. v. Township of Teaneck, 241 N.J. Super. 37, 54, 574 A. 2d 459 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 391, 585 A. 2d 392 (1990). To determine the credibility, weight and probative value of an expert's opinion, one must question the facts and reasoning on which it is based. Johnson v. Salem Corp., 97 N.J. 78, 91, 477 A. 2d 1246 (1984). Moreover, a change of opinion is a valid basis for cross-examination of an expert witness, because that affects the credibility of his expert opinion. Murray, supra, 240 N.J. Super. at 395, 573 A. 2d 488 (citing State v. Guido, 40 N.J. 191, 206, 191 A. 2d 45 (1963)). In Fitzgibbon v. Fitzgibbon, 197 N.J. Super. 63, 69, 484 A. 2d 46 (Chan.Div. 1984), the court held that the data from an MMPI test administered to two parents in a child custody case were not privileged and were subject to discovery as part of the expert's evaluation of the best interests of the child. The court reasoned that the parties had to know all of the relevant elements used by the expert in coming to a conclusion if they are to have a reasonable opportunity to contradict or rebut all or a portion of the expert's evaluation. Id. at 68, 484 A. 2d 46. The prosecutor's use of selected questions from the MMPI test for that purpose was fair. Defendant's own expert testified that the test answers were the basis for his opinion that defendant had a diminished mental capacity at the time that the crimes had been committed. In addition, the expert testified that he had changed his conclusion regarding defendant's truthfulness when answering the questions. To prevent the prosecutor from exploring the basis of either opinion would be unfair. The prosecutor's selected questions directly related to defendant's truthfulness. They were part of the test that Martini used in support of his mental-state defense and that Dr. Greenfield relied on in rendering his opinion on that defense. Furthermore, nothing prevented defense counsel from also asking Dr. Greenfield selected questions from the test that reflected positively on defendant. We also do not agree with defendant's contention that the probative value of the selected questions was outweighed by their potential for prejudice. The probative value of the questions was quite high as they were part of the basis of the opinion of defendant's key expert witness on defendant's main defense  his diminished capacity to commit the crimes due to his severe drug-abuse problem. Moreover, the potential prejudice of the questions was diminished by their general nature and by Dr. Greenfield's testimony that test-takers can manipulate the results by portraying themselves in an artificial light. Evidence Rule 4 provides no basis for excluding the challenged questions.