People v. McCowan

In People v. McCowan (1986) 182 Cal. App. 3d 1, defendant fatally shot his ex-wife after she made an obscene gesture at him as he drove by her home, and shot and wounded her companion, his former mother-in-law. Afterward, the defendant went to the home of his former father-in-law and fatally shot him. He then drove to the law offices of his ex-wife's attorney with the intent of shooting him, but the attorney was gone. The defendant next went to a motel with the intent of committing suicide. Prior to the shootings the defendant drank eight alcoholic beverages. The next day the defendant turned himself in and told police he committed the crimes because he could not take the stress from his job, divorce, father's death, ex-wife's attorney and breakup with a former girlfriend. ( People v. McCowan, supra, 182 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 7-8.) Defendant was examined by a psychiatrist, Dr. Elmer Galioni, who interviewed defendant three times. Dr Galioni was offered as an expert at trial and testified that defendant "suffered from a mental disorder which he characterized as a 'major depressive episode.' Dr. Galioni believed defendant's mental disorder had a significant impact on his mental process the night of the shootings." ( Id. at p. 9.) The trial court precluded defense counsel from asking the expert '"a question as to whether or not the defendant had the capacity to form a mental state in issue here on the date of the alleged commission of the offense. ' The court also barred expert testimony 'as to whether or not the defendant did or did not form the required mental state at the time of the alleged commission of the act. . . ." ( Id. at p. 11.) The court of appeal affirmed the ruling of the trial court and noted the distinction between allowable expert testimony and testimony inadmissible under section 29. "Defendant misconstrues the scope of the prohibition contained in section 29. Contrary to his assertion, the statute does not forbid an expert from stating his opinion about the accused's mental state. Dr. Galioni stated his opinion that, as a result of defendant's mental disorder, he was out of control when he committed the offenses. Section 29 precluded Dr. Galioni only from testifying whether defendant had one of the mental states required for the offenses--for example, malice aforethought. That ultimate determination must be made by the trier of fact." ( Id. at p. 14.)