 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bland v. State5/16/2000
ency caused an extreme and violent reaction from Appellant when provoked, and other aspects of his personality profile. The State filed a Motion in Limine seeking to prohibit any defense testimony regarding "any evidence elicited from defense experts that invade the province of the jury, and is more prejudicial than probative." After hearing arguments, the trial court, relying on Hooks v. State, 862 P.2d 1273 (Okl.Cr.1993), sustained the State's motion "as far as testimony regarding the ultimate issue of intent whether this Defendant could or did form any intent to kill . . . . "
Appellant now argues on appeal the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion and deprived him of his rights to present a full defense. He asserts that Dr. Church's testimony regarding his chemical dependency and how it affected him when he was provoked by the victim would have greatly assisted the jury, especially when they considered the first degree manslaughter instructions. Relying on White v. State, 973 P.2d 306 (Okl.Cr.1998), Appellant argues it was reversible error for the trial court to exclude Dr. Church's testimony.
Initially, Appellant's argument that the trial court excluded Dr. Church's testimony is misleading. The trial court's ruling did not exclude the testimony or prevent the witness from testifying, but merely limited the scope of the expert's opinion. It was defense counsel who decided not to call Dr. Church as a witness during the guilt phase of trial based upon the trial court's ruling.
In Hooks, this Court stated " hen, as in this case, a defendant attempts to elicit expert testimony on the issue of whether he or she possessed the requisite intent to commit the crime in question, such testimony should be excluded." 862 P.2d at 1279. Voluntary intoxication has long been recognized as a defense to the crime of First Degree Malice Murder. White, 973 P.2d at 311 citing Cheadle v. State, 11 Ok.Cr. 566, 149 P. 919 (1915). However, as discussed in the section of this opinion on first stage jury instructions, specifically Proposition IV, Appellant was not entitled to that defense as he did not establish a prima facie case of the elements of that defense. See White, 973 P.2d at 312-13. (Lumpkin, J., specially concurring). Therefore, as voluntary intoxication was not a cognizable defense in this case, opinion testimony from an expert concerning Appellant's chemical dependency was not admissible as to the issue of guilt.
In White, the evidence supported the voluntary intoxication defense. However, testimony from the defendant's mental health expert was excluded by the trial court due to a discovery violation. On appeal, this Court found that exclusion of that testimony was too severe a sanction as it denied Appellant the ability to present the foundation of his voluntary intoxication defense. The Court stated:
Appellant established, if believed, that he was intoxicated after he ingested six valium tablets and drank vodka the afternoon preceding the homicide. He further testified that he never intended to kill Iwanski and that he could not remember significant portions of the evening of the homicide. Dr. Murphy would have explained the second component of the voluntary intoxication defense, i.e. how Appellant's intoxication affected his mental state and prevented him from forming malice aforethought. Such evidence is critical to establish the defense of voluntary intoxication. Id. at 311. The Court further stated that " lthough Dr. Murphy's opinion would have embraced an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact, it was not prohibited by Hooks. . . ." Id. Regardless of the ability of the expert to explain the possible effects of alcohol or other su
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|