Opinion ID: 1236383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Cross-examination of Dr. Trockman.

Text: Dr. Donald Trockman, a forensic psychiatrist, testified as an expert witness for the defense in support of the self-defense claim as to the Belvedere Park counts. Dr. Trockman testified that there was a high correlation between ingestion of PCP and unpredictable violence and hostility. Based on his review of the autopsy report of Gilbert Martinez showing bruises and high levels of PCP and alcohol in his blood, Dr. Trockman concluded that at the time of his death, Martinez was in an angry, aggressive, violent mood. He could not reach any specific conclusion as to the mood of Anthony Aceves because he had lived for three days after the shooting. On cross-examination Dr. Trockman testified that the mental state reached under the influence of alcohol is different from the mental state reached under the influence of PCP. The prosecutor reminded the doctor that he had testified differently in previous cases where the person was charged with being under the influence of PCP and asked the doctor whether his answer was dependent on his function in the particular case. The prosecutor asked Dr. Trockman if Gilbert Martinez was in a violently aggressive mood during his entire period of PCP intoxication, and was told: The important time. The time when he confronted the accused in this case. The prosecutor then asked how he knew the victim had confronted the accused and whether the defense had told him what he had to accomplish to dispel the prosecution case. The prosecutor also asked Dr. Trockman whether, by his testimony, he tries to affect the outcome of a case. The prosecutor queried whether the witness instructed attorneys on the questions they should ask for dramatic effect, to maintain the interest of the jury, and to dispel inferences of defense bias. During closing argument the prosecutor referred to the doctor's admission that he had testified differently in other cases about the distinction between alcohol and PCP intoxication. Based on the admission the prosecutor stated that the doctor is a liar. (11) Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in so questioning the doctor and in calling him a liar during closing argument. Although defendant objected to the questions on cross-examination, he raised no objection during argument to the prosecutor's use of the term liar. Defendant has thus waived the latter point since any harm caused by this characterization could have been cured by a timely objection and an admonition. ( People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27 [164 Cal. Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468].) In any event, there was no prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor was entitled to question the doctor's testimonial consistency and possible bias. ( People v. Meneley (1972) 29 Cal. App.3d 41, 60 [105 Cal. Rptr. 432].) Referring to testimony as lies is an acceptable practice so long as the prosecutor argues inferences based on the evidence and not on the prosecutor's personal belief. ( People v. Edelbacher, supra, 47 Cal.3d 983, 1030.) Closing argument may be vigorous and may include opprobrious epithets when they are reasonably warranted by the evidence. In this case, the prosecutor's argument was based on the evidence and amounted to nothing more than vigorous yet fair argument. ( Ibid. ) Defendant's reliance on People v. McGreen (1980) 107 Cal. App.3d 504 [166 Cal. Rptr. 360] (overruled on other grounds in People v. Wolcott (1983) 34 Cal.3d 92 [192 Cal. Rptr. 748, 665 P.2d 520]) is misplaced. In McGreen, the prosecutor attempted to discredit the expert witness by showing that he had received B and C grades in graduate school and that the witness's membership in certain scientific societies was a sham. The trial court eventually foreclosed further cross-examination on these grounds. The prosecutor nevertheless persisted in the line of questioning and additionally asserted that the witness's testimony had been stricken in another case because it was patently unbelievable. When asked for authority to support the admission of such evidence of the witness's unbelievability, the prosecutor admitted he had none. Additionally, during argument the prosecutor suggested there had been an ethics investigation of the witness and characterized the witness as an habitual liar who prostituted his credentials for $50 an hour. ( Id. at pp. 514-517.) In no way was the cross-examination in this case comparable to that in McGreen. Here, the prosecutor elicited testimony tending to show bias by questioning the witness about his contrary testimony in previous cases and his interest in helping the defense. Such cross-examination was proper. (See People v. Rich (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1036, 1088 [248 Cal. Rptr. 510, 755 P.2d 960].)