Opinion ID: 1752176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Rebuttal Medical Testimony

Text: The State introduced Dr. Loeffelholz as a witness to defendant's mental condition. He expressed the opinion that defendant was not suffering from any significant psychosis or from any noticeable mental illness. He concluded defendant had a pronounced anti-social personality. As part of its case the defense relied upon several expert witnesses who testified concerning defendant's mental condition. Their conclusion was that he was a schizophrenic and that he had experienced mild cerebral damage. The State called Dr. Taylor as a rebuttal witness. The defense objected that his testimony was not proper rebuttal testimony because it was not directed at explaining, repelling, controverting, or disproving any evidence produced by the defense but was rather directed at augmenting psychiatric evidence previously presented in the case through Dr. Loeffelholz. We find no merit in defendant's argument. Dr. Taylor testified that defendant lacked any of the symptoms associated with a schizoid personality. He also testified that the existence of mild brain damage, even if it did exist, would not change his opinion. We believe this testimony was clearly rebuttal in nature. It was designed to refute the claim of schizophrenia, which had been introduced into the case by defendant's experts. The fact that the evidence might also have been used by the State in its main case does not preclude its introduction on rebuttal. State v. Bakker, 262 N.W.2d 538, 543 (Iowa 1978).