Is Reardon an expert who would advise the jury on the adequacy of provocation?

Reardon does not aid defendant in any respect. There the defendant sought to admit testimony regarding the reasonableness of certain police actions, a subject about which expert testimony might assist the jury. Here, in contrast, defendant claimed the expert would "assist the jury in understanding and evaluating the reasonableness of [his own] actions," including "whether he should have fired his own gun in self[-]defense or whether he should have run." "Psychologists, psychiatrists or sociologists may have specialized empirical knowledge regarding the range of reactions to a given provocation, or the reaction of the statistically average individual in a given community. But this information would not materially assist the jury in its task." (People v. Czahara (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1468, 1478.) "[P]sychiatric testimony on adequacy of provocation is inadmissible [because] . . . the adequacy of provocation is not a subject sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact. [Citation.] Rather, the reasonableness of a reaction is left to the jurors

Page 17