Opinion ID: 1204963
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence at the Evidence Code section 402 hearing

Text: Shortly before Crappa was scheduled to testify at trial, the prosecutor informed the court, outside the presence of the jury, that Crappa is not going to testify because she doesn't have any recollection about the events in this case.... The prosecutor moved that the trial court declare Crappa unavailable as a witness (Evid. Code, § 240, subd. (a)(3)), and permit Crappa's testimony from defendant's first trial to be read to the jury pursuant to the prior-testimony exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid. Code, § 1291, subd. (a)(2).) Before ruling on the motion, the trial court requested that Crappa testify at a foundational hearing held pursuant to Evidence Code section 402. [13] A hearing was conducted outside the presence of the jury, during which Crappa testified she had no recollection of her activity at Chantry Flats or, more specifically, of the events to which she testified at defendant's first trial. The trial court made a preliminary determination that Crappa was unavailable to testify within the meaning of the [Evidence Code] statutes at this time. The court determined, however, that the jury should be allowed to evaluate her demeanor and hear why she was unable to testify. Proceedings were resumed in the presence of the jury. As she had at the foundational hearing, Crappa testified to a complete loss of memory with regard to the events that related to this case. She testified she could not recall appearing in court to testify at defendant's first trial. She acknowledged having consulted a psychiatrist or psychologist regarding her memory lapse. [14] Thereafter, the trial court excused the jury. The court informed the parties that Crappa probably has a preexisting mental infirmity so as not to recall her testimony.... And it seems to me that infirmity is such as to permit the introduction of her former testimony. And I don't think she's refusing by her own choice. The court observed that the prosecution had the burden of proving unavailability and, prior to issuing its final ruling, gave the parties five days to prepare the necessary arguments for a full evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, the prosecution presented testimony of Dr. Anthony Staiti, a psychiatrist who had examined Crappa on three occasions in 1985, one year prior to defendant's second trial. Staiti testified Crappa had been referred to him by another psychiatrist for a determination whether she would be capable of working as a police dispatcher. He testified Crappa complained of memory lapses that impeded her efficiency. Staiti affirmed that she had described to him periods of waking up suddenly screaming and shaking, totally panicked without knowing why. Crappa told him that after awakening in a frightened state, she usually could not return to sleep but would, instead, remain awake, waiting for the time to go to work. Staiti diagnosed Crappa as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder chronic delayed, one of the symptoms of which is memory impairment arising at least six months following the initial trauma. Based on his consultations with Crappa in 1985, he opined her memory lapse with respect to events in 1979 had something to do with a murder.... Following the prosecution's direct examination of Dr. Staiti, defense counsel informed the court that the defense had yet to complete its review of the psychiatric reports that Dr. Staiti had brought to court, which consisted of between 20 and 30 pages. The defense requested an opportunity to review this material before cross-examining Dr. Staiti. The prosecutor argued that approximately one-half of the material appeared to be comprised of an M.M.P.I. (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) examination, which Staiti testified he had not considered. The court recessed to allow the defense to review Dr. Staiti's reports, after which defense counsel proceeded with cross-examination, without requesting any further continuance in order to prepare. At the conclusion of the cross-examination, defense counsel reiterated a request (set forth in moving papers opposing a finding that Crappa was unavailable) that the trial court order an independent psychiatric examination of Crappa to assist the court in ascertaining the validity of Crappa's memory loss. The court denied the request. Defendant called as a witness, at the hearing, Judge Philip E. Schwab, who presided over defendant's first trial. Judge Schwab testified that during Crappa's testimony at the first trial, there were substantial delays between the question and an answer, sometimes running perhaps close to a minute, perhaps even longer. After hearing the testimony presented at the hearing, the trial court indicated it was adhering to its preliminary determination that Crappa was unavailable as a witness within the meaning of Evidence Code section 240, subdivision (a)(3). [15]