faefrost
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,285
- Reaction score
- 0
STATE v. MIZELL
Dr. Krop would testify that Mizell has been diagnosed with PTSD, and he would explain what PTSD is and how PTSD affects an individual's perceptions. . .
The State is incorrect, however, in its characterization of PTSD as diminished capacity evidence in this case.   We view the PTSD evidence offered in this case as state-of-mind evidence, quite analogous to battered spouse syndrome (BSS) testimony that has in fact been approved many times.   BSS testimony has been admitted to support a claim of self-defense.   See State v. Hickson, 630 So.2d 172, 173 (Fla.1993) (holding that “an expert can generally describe [BSS] and the characteristics of a person suffering from the syndrome and can express an opinion in response to hypothetical questions predicated on facts in evidence․”.  PTSD evidence, as offered in this case, is not inadmissible as diminished capacity evidence. . .
In this case, the trial court laid down five very specific conditions on the admissibility of PTSD evidence.   These conditions were designed to avoid the problems that have arisen in other cases.   Specifically, the court's order will prevent a trial scenario in which a psychologist may skillfully present the defendant's testimony by the backdoor, negating the State's right to cross-examination.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1188746.html
Obviously, this would not be his first go around with this defense!!
Woot! Good find. Reading it a little I did find the one hugely problematic element of it for the defense.
Defense counsel proposed to offer expert trial testimony from Dr. Harry Krop, a licensed clinical psychologist.   Dr. Krop would testify that Mizell has been diagnosed with PTSD, and he would explain what PTSD is and how PTSD affects an individual's perceptions.   The State objected to the prospect of such expert testimony and filed a motion in limine to prevent its admission.   The trial court denied the motion, outlining very specific conditions under which the defense would be able to offer the PTSD evidence:
1.  The Defendant must lay a predicate by testifying,
2.  Thereafter, Dr. Krop may testify as to the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
3. Dr. Krop may reveal the Defendant's alleged background but may not vouch for it.
4. Dr. Krop may not refer to the Battered Wife's Syndrome.
5. Dr. Krop may not offer an opinion as to the validity of self-defense in this case.
So here we have an established test for using the "state of mind" PTSD approach that mandates that the defendent take the stand before any such evidence may be presented. Oh that should be fun!