Opinion ID: 1160457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defendant's Testimony: Disqualification as a Witness

Text: By the end of his first day on the witness stand, defendant had not completed his testimony on direct examination. The next day, before the morning session commenced, he commented that he had not been administered certain medication that had been prescribed. The superior court asked, You feel okay today?, and he answered, Yeah, I'm feeling okay. It stated, Let's get started. We'll talk about this later, and he added, Fine. His direct examination resumed. The morning recess was called. During its course, he was administered his medication. His direct examination resumed again. The lunch recess was called. Before the afternoon session was to commence, the superior court stated that it had been informed by defense counsel that defendant was groggy from his medication. Defendant gave confirmation. He also remarked that he had not eaten anything that day. The superior court gave him an opportunity to have some food and drink. Afterwards, it asked, Okay, ... how do you feel now?, and he answered, I feel much better. It then asked, Do you feel like continuing on and testifying for another hour?, and he answered, My  my tongue feel [ sic ] kind of thick. Defense counsel requested a continuance of trial until the next day. The superior court granted what he sought, stating to defendant that I'm satisfied ... by the expression of your face and the sound of your voice that you're not as alert as you should be. It then asked defense counsel, Do you want me to tell the jury that he's taking medication or that he just simply isn't feeling well? [¶] Maybe the best thing is simply tell them that he just isn't feeling well, and we gave him an opportunity to have a little food and see if that helped, and it just really didn't. Defense counsel answered, That would be fine. The superior court so informed the jury. The next day, defendant's direct examination resumed. At its opening, he was asked, [A]re you feeling better today?, and answered, Yes, I do. (20) Defendant contends that the superior court erred: (1) by failing to strike, sua sponte, the testimony he gave immediately after he was administered his medication; (2) by failing to admonish the jury, sua sponte, not to consider such testimony; (3) by failing to inform the jury, sua sponte, that he had been administered medication and had been affected thereby; and (4) by failing to admonish the jury, sua sponte, not to consider the demeanor he displayed while he gave the testimony in question. We reject the claim. Defendant's premise is that the superior court was under a duty to intervene, even in the absence of a request, because, in the period of time immediately after he was administered his medication, he was disqualified to be a witness, under Evidence Code section 701, subdivision (a)(1), on the ground that he was [i]ncapable of expressing himself ... concerning the matter so as to be understood.... It fails. The superior court was not under a duty because he was not disqualified. The record on appeal does not show that he was incapable of expression. Indeed, it does not even raise any such suggestion. That is true as to the period of time immediately after he was administered his medication. It is true as well as to the point at which the superior court granted defense counsel's request for a continuance. Perhaps, as the superior court commented, defendant was then not as alert as [he] should be. But that is all. Contrary to defendant's implication, the superior court did not grant defense counsel's request because it found any incapability of expression on his part. Rather, it did so simply to accommodate his indisposition. [17]