Opinion ID: 2612432
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-examination of Dr. Hoyle

Text: (19) Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling an objection to the prosecutor's cross-examination of a defense expert, Dr. Hoyle, concerning the possibility that defendant matched the sex offender psychological profile. Defendant predicates error on the grounds that the cross-examination: (1) exceeded the scope of the direct examination; (2) introduced inadmissible character evidence; and (3) lacked an adequate foundation because Dr. Hoyle had not been qualified as an expert in the area of personality profiles, and such profiles had not been shown to be accepted in the scientific community (see People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30 [130 Cal. Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240]; Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir.1923) 293 Fed. 1013, 1014). [5] Assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that any of the foregoing claims has merit, it is clear nevertheless that defendant could not have been prejudiced by the disputed testimony. Dr. Hoyle, a clinical psychologist, was one of several mental health experts called by defendant at the penalty phase. His testimony, based on an interview with defendant and a review of defendant's school records, social history and tests performed by other experts, indicated that defendant's psychological makeup  characterized by a low normal to borderline IQ, impulsiveness, distorted perceptions of reality, and schyzotypal personality  was consistent with tests showing organic brain damage or atrophy. During his cross-examination of Dr. Hoyle, the prosecutor at one point asked: Doctor, these items that we just covered, don't they fit the profile of a sex offender, a rapist? A defense objection to the question was overruled. Dr. Hoyle then responded as follows: Well, first of all, it seems like you said mentally disordered sex offender maybe or rapist but let's go with sex offender and rapist, neither of those terms are psychiatric diagnosis [ sic ], I'm not aware that Mr. Kelly had ever committed, you know, any acts of rape or sex offense. He had been sexually molested, I believe by his father, however, the only predictor I could come up with that would be useful in a case like that would be whether or not he had ever done it in the past and as far as my record indicates he had not. Pressed to consider whether someone would match the profile if, hypothetically, he had committed rape in the past and also had defendant's psychosocial background  particularly the fact that he was a loner, had limited sexual experience, and was married to an older woman  Dr. Hoyle responded: Well, again, I would have to say that those two, you know, labels that you gave me are not psychiatric diagnoses. At the same time, you know, I'd have to say obviously the man is capable of raping someone if he in fact had, but the mere fact that he marries an older woman ... I don't feel is adequate to make that conclusion nor is the fact that he had limited sexual experience adequate to draw that conclusion, nor is the fact that he's a loner. Stymied in his attempt to label defendant as a stereotypical sex offender, the prosecutor quickly retreated from this line of inquiry. His next question was: I assume then that in the four years that you have been practicing, you haven't worked with many people who were violent sex offenders? The witness readily acknowledged that he had not: That certainly wasn't the focus of my treatment. After several further questions, the cross-examination was completed. As the record thus discloses, not only did Dr. Hoyle fail to respond affirmatively when asked whether defendant matched the so-called sex offender profile, he flatly rejected the notion. As a result, the prosecutor was compelled to abandon the inquiry. Accordingly, there is no reasonable possibility that a result more favorable to defendant might have resulted absent the testimony in question. ( People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1281 [232 Cal. Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115].)