Opinion ID: 1058852
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impulsiveness

Text: Juniper first maintains that Dr. Pasquale's testimony about impulsiveness did not, as the Commonwealth alleges, relate to premeditation which had been decided at the guilt phase. Rather, Juniper contends Dr. Pasquale testified to his overall opinion that Defendant is an impulsive person and is possessed of an impulsive character. He argues that Dr. Pasquale did not testify that Juniper's actions with regard to the murder were an impulsive act. We disagree. Prior to the Commonwealth's objection, Dr. Pasquale made references to impulsiveness, which he described as a trait of the preadolescent stage of development, an indicator of characterological disfunction, and a characteristic of antisocial behavior, all of which he said applied to Juniper. However, defense counsel, near the end of his examination of Dr. Pasquale, moved from questions regarding a general evaluation of Juniper to Dr. Pasquale's opinion as to influences upon Juniper at the time of the offense. Q: Now, I want to direct your attention more specifically to the issues before us in this case. Specifically, sir, and I'm referring you to page ten of your report. Would you address the issue of . . . whether you have an opinion as to whether or not Mr. Juniper acted under extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the offense ? A: What I had stated [in my report] are three questions that are being asked in reference to issues relevant to mitigation and risk. The first one [was] did this person have a lot of stress, mental, emotional disturbance at the time of offense. And I said [in my report] that . . . he was in a highly emotional, abusive and troubling relationship with Ms. Stephens over a period of many months; that when you combine his attachment problems, his rage reactions, his need to control with a person that he's embroiled with, that a foundation for violence becomes built. Now, I went on to look at something else as well. . . . [T]hat . . . the issue of premeditated aggression may be questioned in contrast to an act of impulsivity. Q: Explain that if you would, Dr. Pasquale. A: Well, it's the notion of how do I view Mr. Juniper behaving violently, being aggressive. And . . . my interpretation was that he was a very impulsive person who might not put a lot of thought at all into doing something. (Emphasis added). The Commonwealth then objected, arguing that [premeditation] has already been resolved with the guilt phase. Juniper responded that Dr. Pasquale was not testifying that [Juniper] lacked premeditation, but perhaps just putting it in context of the impulsivity that Dr. Pasquale has already testified to, [20] not that there was an absence of [premeditation] in context. Dr. Pasquale testified that there was a difference between premeditated aggression and an act of impulsivity. However, any contrast between Juniper's alleged mental state at the time of the crime and the required element of premeditation is applicable only as it relates to Juniper's culpability, not his sentence. We agree with the Commonwealth that Dr. Pasquale's testimony on this point would have been properly admissible only if Juniper were advancing a defense based upon mental disease or disorder in the guilt phase, which he did not. See generally, Dandridge, 267 Va. at 596-97, 594 S.E.2d at 581-82; Bailey v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 723, 734, 529 S.E.2d 570, 576, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 995, 121 S.Ct. 488, 148 L.Ed.2d 460 (2000). The trial court ruled that Dr. Pasquale could not render opinions on premeditation during the commission of the offenses. We agree. The trial court's exclusion of Dr. Pasquale's impulsiveness testimony regarding Juniper's state of mind at the time of the offense was not erroneous.