Skip to content
Name: People v. Prostsman
Case #: D034285
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/13/2001
Subsequent History: DEPUBLISHED; rev. den. & ordered depub. 6/13/01 (S095974)

Editor's note: This case depublished by the Supreme Court on 6/13/01 (S095974) Results of a positron emission tomography (PET) brain scan may be properly excluded under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24. Appellant here was convicted of first degree murder and allegations of robbery, special circumstances, and use of a deadly weapon were found true; he was sentenced to LWOP. The victim had been bludgeoned in the head with a hammer and then the crime scene was cleaned and staged to make it look like the victim was watching television. At trial, the defense proffered the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kurey
Case #: B141119
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/28/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was found to have violated his probation by violating Penal Code section 311.11, misdemeanor possession of images , the production of which involves the use of a person under the age of 18 personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, with knowledge the person is under 18. The court rejected his argument that the statute was unconstitutional, and distinguished The Free Speech Coalition v. Janet Reno (9th Cir. 1999) 198 F.3d 1083, on the ground that the Reno case involved criminalization of the images of fictitious children. The California statute requires a real minor…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Robbie
Case #: A088619
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/12/2001
Subsequent History: Rehg. denied 11/8/01. Rev. denied 1/16/02.

During appellant’s trial for kidnap and several sex offenses, the court allowed prosecution testimony of an expert witness who was called to testify that appellant’s conduct was consistent with that of a rapist. The expert, a special agent with the Department of Justice, testified that comments appellant had made were those a rapist would make, driving the victim home and asking her questions about her life was a common practice of rapists, and that negotiating what sex acts she would perform was common. The appellate court here reversed appellant’s convictions, holding that the admission of the testimony…

View Full Summary
Name: Dillard v. Roe
Case #: 99-56345
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/27/2001
Subsequent History: Amended on rehearing den. 5/17/01

The admission of Battered Women's Syndrome (BWS) testimony by an expert pursuant to California Evidence Code section 1107 in a spousal abuse prosecution did not render the trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate due process. The expert testimony about BWS tended to discredit the victim's changed story about who inflicted her injuries, but her credibility was destroyed anyway by the testimony of responding police officers. The evidence against Dillard was overwhelming, and even if the admission of the testimony was error under California law, it did not violate Dillard's due process…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bui
Case #: C029902
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/07/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 5/2/01

The expert's testimony here regarding the effects of methamphetamine on human behavior was based upon a method of research which involved correlating the driver's use of methamphetamine with the observations of the driver's behavior by percipient witnesses in accident cases in Washington State. The prosecution's expert had published two papers on this subject had been subjected to peer review. The defense expert testified that extrapolations the prosecution made regarding the effect of methamphetamine use on driving behavior could not be made based on these data, and that there were no similar studies. The trial court held that…

View Full Summary
Name: Pawlyk v. Wood
Case #: 98-35026
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/19/2001
Subsequent History: Rehg den.

Appellant's due process rights were not violated when the state of Washington compelled disclosure to the prosecution and the jury of the evaluation of a psychiatrist who was not called as a witness by the defense. Appellant was examined by two psychiatrists at state expense in preparation of the insanity defense for his trial on murder charges. Only one psychiatrist, the one who had concluded appellant was having a psychotic episode and did not know right from wrong, was ultimately called as a witness. After appellant's sanity was placed in issue, the court allowed the testimony of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Linn
Case #: B142261
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 07/25/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. grant & hold 10/31/01

A police officer gave opinion testimony that defendant was inside the house to commit a burglary. Defendant failed to preserve the issue by specifically objecting on the ground that this was improperly admitted as expert testimony beyond common experience, and even if error, it was not…

View Full Summary