 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Garduno6/7/2002
ts about past abuse. Neither expert witness discussed this particular husband and wife nor offered an opinion on specific facts or the actual occurrence of a crime. (See People v. Morgan (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1217.)
Finally, defendant asserts the erroneous admission of the expert testimony was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18) and it was reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred without the error (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836). He also claims the erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence rendered his trial unfair. (See McKinney v. Rees (9th Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1378.)
But we have concluded the admission of the testimony was not in error. The trial court heard the victim's testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses before determining that sufficient evidence existed to show the victim could be considered a battered woman. Furthermore, numerous jury instructions cautioned the jury about the correct use of the expert testimony, its right to ignore opinions it found unreasonable, and that the expert's testimony on a hypothetical is not necessarily true. (CALJIC Nos. 2.09, 2.80, 2.82.) The jury was also instructed with CALJIC No. 9.35.1, that when evidence is admitted pursuant to Evidence Code section 1107, it could not be considered to prove the occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form the basis of the crime, rather it could only be considered for the limited purpose of showing that the victim's reaction was not inconsistent with the typical behavior of victims of domestic violence.
We also find it important to note that defendant presented his own expert witness who disagreed with some of the opinions of the prosecution expert. In fact, the defense expert opined that a pattern of abuse over a lengthy period of time was necessary to create battered women's syndrome in a victim of domestic violence. Thus, the jury had the benefit of two different views on battered women's syndrome and could assess the value of each expert view in evaluating the victim's testimony and credibility.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
Premo, Acting P.J.
Elia, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|