People v. Bynum, 26544
| Decision Date | 01 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 26544,26544 |
| Citation | 556 P.2d 469,192 Colo. 60 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Louis BYNUM, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Janet Lee Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Mary G. Allen, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant-appellant Bynum and Leslie Roy Bell were convicted of robbing 1 a young couple in a restaurant parking lot. They were apprehended shortly after the robbery on the strength of the victims' descriptions of their assailants. The appellant and Bell were in possession of the money clip and purse taken from the victims, together with the approximate amount of money taken from them. At their joint trial, their chief defense was that Bell was under the influence of drugs during the robbery and therefore was unable to form the specific intent to rob and was also unable to conform his conduct to the law by reason of intoxication from drugs. Bynum based his defense on the fact that he did not participate in the robbery even though he was present and that he was totally surprised by Bell's drug-induced behavior. Bynum's appeal to this court centers on issues relating to the proof of the mental condition of Bell and himself at the time of the robbery. We affirm Bynum's judgment of conviction.
Reversal is urged on the ground that the trial court erred in refusing to allow a psychiatrist to testify as to the use of sodium amytal tests on defendant Bell when evaluating Bell's mental condition at the time of the robbery.
The trial court's refusal was premised on an In camera hearing on the defendants' offer of proof. At this hearing, two medical experts testified. Sodium amytal is popularly misnomered as a 'truth serum,' and as explained by the defendants' expert witnesses, the drug acts as a depressant which is sometimes used as a diagnostic tool by psychiatrists to reduce a patient's inhibitions so that his subconscious impressions might be more deeply probed. See also State v. Sinnott, 24 N.J. 408, 132 A.2d 298 (1957), which contains a well documented discussion about sodium amytal and its uses. According to one expert's testimony, while sodium amytal might be helpful in releasing information buried in the subconscious, it has doubtful value when used to elicit that which is consciously suppressed or to obtain confessions of crime.
The defense proposed to use the psychiatrist's testimony as to his use of the drug only for the limited purpose of establishing the basis of his opinion that defendant Bell was under the influence of drugs, though not for the purpose of proving the truth of the statements made by Bell during the test. The defense argues that by so limiting the purposes for which the tests were proposed to be admitted as evidence, the objection to the untrustworthiness of the test as a truth telling device could have been avoided.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing testimony concerning the tests even for this limited purpose. It is within the special province and competence of the trial court to determine the relevancy of evidence at trial, and for the following reasons, we agree with the trial court's rejection of this evidence.
The psychiatrist called by the defense admitted that the sodium amytal test played only a small part in his evaluation of Bell, and it was merely corroborative of his previously formed opinion, derived from other sources, that Bell was under the influence of drugs during the robbery. In fact, the psychiatrist never personally conducted a sodium amytal test on Bell, but instead, merely relied on a transcript of statements made by Bell during a test given by another psychiatrist. Furthermore, the experts called by the defendants admitted that such testing is often unreliable and quite dependent on various factors, such as, the dosage given to the individual tested and the doctor's familiarity with that individual.
The trial court had to weigh the several difficulties and precautions that would be required if any mention of the sodium amytal tests were injected as issues into the trial. The misleading reputation of the drug as a 'truth serum' might have made it difficult to adequately instruct the jury to confine their considerations to the limited purpose for which the tests were admitted as to defendant Bell. Such confusion may have been particularly acute in this case where the tests would have been admitted not to establish this defendant's general mental proclivities, but more specifically, to support the defense theory that defendant Bell was intoxicated by drugs at the time of the robbery. In this latter regard, the mere willingness of defendant Bell to take such a test on such a limited inquiry may have improperly given credence to the defendant's assertions. 2
Based on these factors, we reiterate that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and did not commit error in refusing to admit the testimony on the sodium amytal testing in this particular case.
The appellant also contends that he was denied due proces of the law because a videotape of their booking at the police station on the night of the robbery was not made available to him by the People. He argues that the videotape could have been critical evidence as to their mental condition and demeanor on the night of the robbery.
The Colorado Springs police department routinely videotapes the booking of individuals at the police station upon their arrest. The booking procedure normally consists of receiving and inventorying the person's effects in his presence. When the possible existence of such tapes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boettcher & Co., Inc. v. Munson, 92SC15
...the admissibility of evidence under CRE 401 and 403); see People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1108 (Colo.1990) (quoting People v. Bynum, 192 Colo. 60, 62, 556 P.2d 469, 471 (1976)) ("It is within the 'special province Page 211 and competence of the trial court to determine the relevancy o......
-
People v. Czemerynski
...within the "special province and competence of the trial court to determine the relevancy of evidence at trial." People v. Bynum, 192 Colo. 60, 62, 556 P.2d 469, 471 (1976). Evidence is "relevant when it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of ......
-
People v. Bowman
...be disturbed on review. People v. Cole, 654 P.2d 830 (Colo.1982); People v. Henry, 195 Colo. 309, 578 P.2d 1041 (1978); People v. Bynum, 192 Colo. 60, 556 P.2d 469 (1976). Constitutional rights to cross-examine witnesses are not absolute and may be limited to accommodate competing interests......
-
People v. Reynolds
...v. People, 173 Colo. 243, 477 P.2d 363. The relevance determination is a matter for the discretion of the trial court. People v. Bynum, Colo., 556 P.2d 469. Since Officer Shuck personally viewed the place where the picture was taken and stated that the picture was a fair and accurate repres......