Opinion ID: 2599941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Coleman

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the rebuttal testimony of Dr. Lee Coleman because that evidence encouraged the jury to nullify the diminished capacity defense and to ignore defendant's mental state and convict him based upon his acts alone, and because that testimony was irrelevant and inherently prejudicial, and denied him due process. Defendant's claim was forfeited by counsel's failure to object in the trial court. Defense counsel did object to Dr. Coleman's giving a general opinion on the reliability of testimony from psychiatrists and psychologists. The court agreed that his testimony should be directed to the expert testimony given in this case, and sustained objections when Dr. Coleman appeared to be giving a general opinion concerning psychological evidence not specifically related to the present case. But defense counsel did not object to Dr. Coleman's giving a specific opinion concerning the reliability of the particular methods used by the defense experts or their conclusions concerning defendant's mental state. In the course of his testimony, Dr. Coleman sometimes explained his opinions on particular matters by reference to his more general views that psychological methods lack reliability and relevance in the context of legal proceedings, but defense counsel did not object to this testimony. Furthermore, even if defense counsel had objected on the grounds now urged by defendant, we would find no error. In several cases, we have upheld the admission of testimony by Dr. Coleman similar to the testimony he gave at defendant's trial. (See, e.g., People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 965-969, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171; People v. Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1019, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099; People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 728-731, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 838 P.2d 729.) In Smithey, we fully considered and rejected the arguments defendant raises here. We find nothing in the present case to distinguish it from these prior decisions, nor do we find any reason to reconsider our previous conclusions related to such testimony.