Opinion ID: 1113193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Psychiatric reports.

Text: (17a) We reach similar conclusions about defendant's complaint that the prosecutor wrongly elicited from Dr. Siegel the hearsay details of prior unfavorable psychological reports. When the prosecutor asked Dr. Siegel whether he considered any prior psychological evaluations, the witness replied that he was provided with several psychological assessments of defendant between 1972 and 1978. According to Dr. Siegel, these reports talked words such as potential for violence and suggested that defendant demonstrated bravado, manipulation, and aggression. Apparently, Dr. Siegel suggested, [defendant] had a long history [during these years] with descriptors like that being used. Even if counsel should have sought to prevent independent consideration of these hearsay matters (see, e.g., Whitfield v. Roth (1974) 10 Cal.3d 874, 894-895 [112 Cal. Rptr. 540, 519 P.2d 588]), his omission is not grounds for reversal. According to Dr. Siegel, defendant himself described fights he had gotten into and wasn't denying that he was prone to violence, whether or not intoxicated. Dr. Siegel indicated that the only dispute was about interpretation; defendant's view was that he only did it when he was provoked or when he needed to put some dude in line. The generalities contained in the psychological evaluations, as described by Dr. Siegel, were not inconsistent with defendant's own admissions. (18)(See fn. 18.), (17b) Thus, revelation of these matters does not undermine confidence in the penalty judgment. [18]