How have expert testimony been excluded from the trial jury in a murder case?

As explained above, in the circumstances of the present case, the proffered expert testimony was not relevant to the jury's determination of whether appellant had the mental states required to support the charged offenses or to the jury's evaluation of appellant's out of court statements. The expert testimony was only minimally probative to an assessment of the credibility of appellant's testimony, because that determination did not turn on the types of deficits in mental functioning identified by the experts. On the other hand, the trial court properly considered under Evidence Code section 352 the possibility that the expert testimony would result in confusion. The risk was particularly pronounced because the testimony would have consumed significant time, without there being any clear link between the identified mental deficits and the issues in the case. The trial court also properly considered the risk that the expert testimony would improperly inject sympathy for appellant into the jury's deliberations. (See People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1064 (Sedillo) ["photographs showing defendant with her child were unduly prejudicial because they tended to arouse sympathy for her as a mother"].) Because the expert testimony was minimally probative at best, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it under Evidence Code section 352.

Page 18

Even if the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony, it is not "reasonably probable the jury would have reached a result more favorable to" appellant had the evidence been admitted. (People v. Alcala (1992) 4 Cal.4th 742, 791.) Appellant lied to the police, fled out of state, admitted his involvement in the murder to two acquaintances in Miami, and attempted to escape upon his return to California.