Opinion ID: 1168333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial References to Dr. Garcia's Opinion

Text: Bayless testified that at the time of the shooting, Lundstrom suffered from a brief reactive psychosis, a form of temporary insanity. Essentially, Bayless testified Lundstrom was M'Naghten insane during the commission of the offense. On direct, Bayless stated that his practice is to consult with physicians and other psychologists when evaluating patients like Lundstrom, and that he did so in this case. RT, Jan. 16, 1986, at 83-84. In particular, Bayless testified he discussed, quite by accident, Lundstrom's case with Leonardo Garcia-Bunuel, M.D. Garcia is the chief psychiatrist for the Correctional Health Services at the Maricopa County Jail, where Lundstrom was incarcerated after his arrest. Garcia saw Lundstrom at the jail the day after the killing, examined and evaluated him, and assigned him to a psychiatric ward. Neither party called Garcia to the stand. When Bayless related the fact of his conversation with Garcia, the prosecutor objected on the ground that defense counsel had not listed Garcia as a witness and was trying to back-door Garcia's opinion into the proceedings. The court withheld a ruling on the objection, noting the objection was premature. Bayless continued his testimony, stating he solely relied on the grand jury transcript, medical examiner's report, police report, and his own expertise in preparing his written report. Bayless concluded that Lundstrom was insane at the time of the offense. When asked if his examination of the police reports indicated Lundstrom's comportment after arrest demonstrated that he had suffered a loss of contact with reality, Bayless responded affirmatively and added that Garcia substantiated his opinion on this point. The court then sustained the prosecutor's objection and recessed the trial. At a subsequent in-chambers conference, defense counsel acknowledged Bayless's earlier testimony that he did not rely on other experts in preparation of his final report. Counsel stated, however, that Bayless did rely on Garcia's opinion for his in-court testimony and Bayless should be permitted not only to testify as to that reliance, but also as to the content of Garcia's opinion. Counsel avowed that Garcia's opinion was the same as Bayless's  Lundstrom suffered a reactive psychosis triggered by having learned of his wife's continuing infidelity, resulting pregnancy, and threat to leave him; [3] thus Lundstrom lost touch with reality and was M'Naghten insane at the time of the killing. The court ruled Bayless could testify that he relied on Garcia's opinion for his own in-court opinion testimony, but could not testify what Garcia's opinion was or that it was consistent with or the same as his own. After court reconvened, defense counsel concluded Bayless's direct examination in accordance with the court's ruling. On cross-examination, however, Bayless testified that Garcia agreed with the substance of Bayless's opinion. The prosecutor objected to this as an unresponsive answer and moved to strike. The court denied the motion, ruling, as his discretion permits, that the prosecutor invited the particular answer by asking broad, non-leading questions. On redirect, Bayless again began to refer to Garcia, but defense counsel cut him off. Before closing argument, the trial judge instructed defense counsel not to refer to Garcia's opinion, and counsel responded he did not intend to. Yet defense counsel argued to the jury that Dr. Bayless answered that he checked with Dr. Garcia, and Dr. Garcia concurred in his opinion. RT, Jan. 22, 1986, at 67. This time the court sustained the prosecutor's objection. Defense counsel justified his actions by pointing out that because the court refused to strike Bayless's reference to Garcia's opinion during cross-examination, he legitimately could argue it to the jury. The judge disagreed and instructed the jury to disregard that portion of defense counsel's argument. [4] During its deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking for a transcript of Bayless's testimony. The court responded that no transcript was available, but all the testifying doctors' testimony could be read in open court, taking approximately six to eight hours. The jury wrote they were specifically interested in Bayless's references to other physicians' opinions, but if that portion alone could not be read back they would rely on their memories and notes. The jury chose not to request the reading of any testimony and subsequently returned the manslaughter verdict.