## Facts

- Priscilla E. Phillips, a Marin County social worker, lived with her husband and two sons and sought to adopt a daughter after medical issues ended her ability to have more children.
- Phillips and her husband adopted a Korean infant girl, Tia, in 1975; early medical exams found Tia generally healthy aside from minor treatable conditions.
- Over the next year, Tia suffered repeated episodes of vomiting and diarrhea and multiple hospitalizations; testing during these episodes showed elevated sodium levels.
- In February 1977, Tia died with an extremely high sodium level in her blood, supporting an inference of exogenous sodium administration.
- After Tia’s death, Phillips adopted another Korean infant girl, Mindy, who was not biologically related to Tia.
- On the first anniversary of Tia’s death, Mindy was hospitalized with vomiting and diarrhea and elevated sodium; staff suspected poisoning and controlled her feeding.
- Testing of a bottle of formula prepared by Phillips revealed an inordinately high sodium level; Mindy’s condition improved when Phillips was prevented from feeding her.
- The prosecution called psychiatrist Dr. Martin Blinder to explain Munchausen syndrome by proxy as a condition in which a caregiver induces a child’s illness to obtain attention and sympathy.
- Blinder had not examined Phillips; he responded to a detailed hypothetical based on the trial evidence that the described pattern would be consistent with Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
- A jury convicted Phillips of murdering Tia (Cal. Penal Code § 187) and willfully endangering Mindy’s life or health (Cal. Penal Code § 273a(1)) by administering a sodium compound to each child’s food.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged juror misconduct required reversal of the convictions.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting psychiatric expert testimony on Munchausen syndrome by proxy offered through a hypothetical question without a personal examination of the defendant.
3. Whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on diminished capacity and, if so, whether failure to do so was reversible error.

## Decision

- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court found no juror misconduct establishing a substantial likelihood of juror bias warranting reversal.
- The court upheld admission of the psychiatric expert testimony, concluding expert opinion based on hypotheticals rooted in evidence was permissible and did not improperly decide guilt.
- The court held the record did not require a diminished-capacity instruction absent a request because substantial evidence did not support the doctrine’s application; any omission was not reversible.

## Legal Principles

- Juror misconduct, if proven, creates a presumption of prejudice, but the presumption may be rebutted by the entire record showing no substantial likelihood of actual juror bias.
- Expert testimony may be elicited through hypothetical questions grounded in evidence when it assists the jury on matters beyond common experience and does not usurp the jury’s role on ultimate facts.
- Psychiatric syndrome evidence may be admitted to explain behavior patterns, even without a personal examination of the defendant, when framed as general or “consistent with” testimony rather than a direct diagnosis or guilt opinion.
- A trial court must instruct sua sponte on a defense theory only when substantial evidence supports it; diminished-capacity instructions are not required absent such evidence.

## Conclusion

The convictions were affirmed because the record did not show reversible juror bias, the syndrome-based psychiatric testimony was properly admitted through an evidence-rooted hypothetical without directly opining on guilt, and there was no sua sponte duty to instruct on diminished capacity given the evidentiary showing.


People v. Phillips, 175 Cal. Rptr. 703 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)