People v. Cortes
192 Cal. App. 4th 873
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Leopoldo Cortes was convicted of first-degree murder with a deadly weapon enhancement and sentenced to 25 years to life plus one year.
- Appeal contends the trial court unduly restricted psychiatric expert Dr. Dondershine, hindering a complete defense.
- The People concede error in failing to hold a shackling hearing and to limit shackling testimony; remedy direction on retrial.
- The defense challenges admission of evidence of prior fights and alleges prosecutorial misconduct regarding gang-related references.
- Court reverses judgment on the undue restriction of psychiatric testimony; remands for a shackling-hearing issue if retrial occurs; rejects other challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restricting psychiatric testimony violated rights | Cortes argues DSM/ dissociation evidence is admissible to show state of mind. | Cortes contends exclusion of dissociation/PTSD testimony blocked defense and premeditation analysis. | Undue restriction; prejudice found; reversal granted. |
| Shackling without manifest need and came with instruction | Court failed to hold a hearing; shackling unnecessary under record. | Shackling without manifest need violated due process and trial fairness. | Error; remand for manifest-need hearing; remove or limit shackling instruction if retrial. |
| Admission of evidence of prior fights | Prior fights were probative of motive/intent and admissible. | Prior acts were not sufficiently similar to prove malicious intent and violated limits. | Evidence properly admitted; upheld. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct regarding gang references | Gang references were relevant to credibility or context and not prejudicial. | Gang references risked prejudice and violated in limine ruling. | No prosecutorial misconduct; remand may be needed to address evidentiary boundaries. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Coddington, 23 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2000) (limits expert mental-state testimony; defense may show absence of required mental state)
- People v. Vieira, 35 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2005) (limits on expert testimony; balances mental state evidence with sections 28-29)
- People v. Ochoa, 19 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 1998) (section 29 prohibits ultimate mental-state testimony; otherwise admissible)
- People v. Jackson, 152 Cal.App.3d 961 (Cal. App. 1984) (battered woman / psychotic defense allowed within limits; not to state ultimate intent)
- People v. Aris, 215 Cal.App.3d 1178 (Cal. App. 1989) (battered woman syndrome evidence; admissible to perceptions, not to malice)
- Nunn v. State, 50 Cal.App.4th 1357 (Cal. App. 1996) (limits on expert testimony on intent; overreactive testimonies permissible)
- Young v. People, 189 Cal.App.3d 891 (Cal. App. 1987) (admissibility of mental-condition evidence; no impermissible reliance on state of mind)
- McCowan v. State, 182 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. App. 1986) (depression/pressure testimony; admissible to show effects on mental state)
- Whitler v. People, 171 Cal.App.3d 337 (Cal. App. 1985) (psychiatric testimony on mental condition admissible with limits)
- Aris, 215 Cal.App.3d 1178 (Cal. App. 1989) (battered woman syndrome evidence; limits on ultimate issue testimony)
- Bordelon v. People, 162 Cal.App.4th 1311 (Cal. App. 2008) (dissociation/ PTSD testimony foundations; admissibility within statutory limits)