Opinion ID: 2570148
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Doris Scott

Text: Doris Scott, defendant's aunt, moved to the park in 1962 when she was 18, and left in 1975. At the time of her testimony, she had recently learned that Mercer had molested one of her sons. Hugh, her youngest son, was raised in the park and had trouble with violence as an adult. Doris turned her own anger inward, and tried to commit suicide twice. Unlike defendant's father, her husband loved her sons dearly and openly. She and her husband felt guilty for not protecting their children, and had spent the rest of their lives trying to make up for what they suffered at the park. Doris testified that her own children had problems with violence, and at least one of her sons had problems with the law. Defense counsel pursued the matter, asking, a lot of the kids coming out of that have had problems and continue to have problems? Doris answered, Yes, sir. My younger brothers and my younger sisters have all had problems. In response to a prosecution objection, the trial court ruled that generalities that other people have had problems is fine, and that answer will remain. But going into the details of problems of others would be irrelevant. The ruling was proper. Moreover, as discussed above, the jury heard extensive testimony about the negative impacts of park life. (10) As to all these witnesses, defendant complains that the court's limitation of defense counsel's questioning prevented him from fully rebutting the prosecutor's assertions that he was the only member of his church or extended family who had problems or committed criminal acts as a result of his upbringing. [16] We disagree. Although the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments confer a right upon capital defendants to present all relevant mitigating evidence to the jury [citation], the United States Supreme Court never has suggested that this right precludes the state from applying ordinary rules of evidence to determine whether such evidence is admissible. ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 995.) We note that Danny Johnson, and Hugh and Doris Scott, all testified that children from the park later had trouble with the law. The court did not deprive defendant of his right to present relevant mitigating evidence.