Purely Delusional Beliefs

I was in a stalking (Penal Code section 646.9) trial years ago relying on a mistake-of-fact defense. This defense was supported by a psychologist we had retained for trial. In the middle of trial the DA files a motion seeking to exclude my psychologist. Not a good time to bring that sort of motion. We pause the trial in order to have this 402 hearing on motion to exclude and the court grants it and excludes my expert. Outrageous! Well this sort of thing isn’t always outrageous. I can live with rulings that aren’t in my favor. This one though - take my word for it. Outrageous. I make a motion for a mistrial because I spent voir dire and opening statement promising the jury that they’d hear from my expert and that the defense rests almost entirely on her anticipated testimony. Still, motion for a mistrial denied. Given the timing of the DA motion to exclude, I think there’s an inference that they goaded the mistrial which would potentially bar them from retrying the case. We didn’t get to that. Expert excluded. Mistrial denied. Client found guilty as charged.

Well, Davis. Don’t make promises to the jury that you can’t keep.

Ok, yeah. Good point. My bad. Can I shake your hand? Here’s the thing about me: I trust that a court is going to make correct legal rulings before I start yapping about my defense to a jury. In this case, was the correct legal ruling to exclude my expert from testifying? Here’s what the Court of Appeal had to say about it:

“In excluding Dr. Murphy’s testimony, the trial court relied on a line of cases that prohibit a defendant from relying on a mistake-of-fact defense when the alleged mistake arises from purely delusional thinking, i.e., when the defendant harbors a false belief with no basis in reality.  (See People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121; People v. Mejia-Lenares (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1437.)  However, those cases do not apply when the defendant’s mistaken impression has an objective correlate.  (People v. Elmore, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 137 [explaining a defendant who mistakes a stick for a snake would be entitled to put on a mistake-of-fact defense, whereas a defendant who sees a snake where there is nothing snake-like would not].) 

The objective correlate here was the Facebook messages that appellant received from Naruna Souza and other people during the time he was communicating with [redacted].  Because those messages actually existed, respondent concedes appellant’s case does not come within the rule prohibiting a mistake-of-fact defense based on purely delusional thinking.  (See People v. Schuller (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 221, 232-232, review granted Jan. 19, 2022, S272237 [trial court should have instructed on mistake-of-fact defense since the alleged mistake was grounded in objective circumstances and was not derived solely from the defendant’s own thoughts].) 

Respondent [the Attorney General] also admits Dr. Murphy’s testimony was permissible under Penal Code sections 28 and 29, which limit the scope of expert testimony related to the defendant’s mental condition.  Those sections bar an expert from testifying about whether the defendant had the capacity to form, or actually formed, the specific intent required for the charged offense.  (People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 440-441.)  But they do not prohibit expert testimony on how the defendant’s particular mental condition may have impacted his or her ability to form such intent.  (Ibid.)  Thus, while Dr. Murphy would not have been allowed to testify that appellant did not have the specific intent required for the charged offenses, or that he was incapable of forming such intent, she should have been permitted to testify about appellant’s erotomania and how it may have affected his thinking at the time of the charged offenses.  (Ibid.; People v. Cortes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 873, 908.)  Therefore, the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Murphy’s testimony altogether.”

So I was right all along. Hmm. I’m noticing a pattern… In case it isn’t clear, the AG conceded that I was correct about everything and everyone else was wrong. The 4DCA then went on to find the exclusion of the expert harmless beyond a reasonable doubt - I believe that’s the standard for this kind of issue on appeal. Judgment affirmed.

I have some beliefs about why the CA found it to be harmless error. And no, my beliefs are not purely delusional. No, no. My delusions have an objective correlate.

CA Supreme Court denied petition for review.