Title: In Re Estate of Kidd
Citation: 106 Ariz. 554, 479 P.2d 697
Docket Number: 10072-PR
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: January 19, 1971

106 Ariz. 554 (1971) 479 P.2d 697 In the Matter of the ESTATE of James KIDD, Deceased. Joe H. CERNY, Emma G. Clausser, Russell L. Dilts, Psychical Research Foundation, Inc., the American Society for Psychical Research, Inc., and Joseph W. Still, M.D., Appellants, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, Phoenix, a national banking association, Administrator With the Will Annexed, Neurological Sciences Foundation, Inc., as Trustee, and Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, Appellees. No. 10072-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. January 19, 1971. *555 Welliever, Smith, Holt &amp; Smith, Phoenix, for Joe H. Cerny. Emma G. Clausser, in pro. per. Carmichael, Johnson, Stephens &amp; Vanlandingham, Phoenix, for Russell L. Dilts. Strickland, Altaffer, Davis &amp; Eppstein, Tucson, for Psychical Research Foundation, Inc. and the American Society for Psychical Research, Inc. Sheldon Stern, Phoenix, Melvin Belli, San Francisco, Cal. (associated as counsel), for Joseph W. Still. Divelbiss &amp; Gage, Phoenix, for First National Bank of Ariz. Gorodezky, Marron &amp; Diamond, Allen L. Feinstein, Phoenix, for Neurological Sciences Foundation, Inc. and Barrow Neurological Institute. STRUCKMEYER, Chief Justice. This appeal is from a determination of heirship in which the rights of 103 claimants under the will of James Kidd were adjudicated. James Kidd was a bachelor of frugal nature who came to Arizona about 1920. On January 2, 1946, he wrote a holographic will which was sealed in an envelope and placed in a safety deposit box. A few years later, Kidd disappeared without a trace. But it was not until shortly before March 6, 1964 that his will was discovered and on that date offered for probate. On proof *556 that Kidd had absented himself from Maricopa County, Arizona for such a period as to be presumed dead, see A.R.S. § 12-509, his will was admitted to probate and the First National Bank of Arizona was appointed as Administrator With Will Annexed. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 14-641, the First National Bank filed a petition to determine heirship and subsequently moved for summary judgment, asking the court to declare that Kidd's will created a valid charitable trust. The trial court granted the motion of the bank, declaring that Kidd's will created a valid charitable trust, and set for hearing the petitions, statements of interest, and claims of those individuals and organizations who sought distribution of the estate under the terms of the will. Hearings were held which continued for a period of almost three months the trial court taking testimony and receiving exhibits from more than sixty claimants in addition to the more than forty claims submitted without oral testimony. After extended consideration, the court decreed that the claim of the Neurological Sciences Foundation be granted, and that the residue of James Kidd's estate, amounting to about $175,000.00, be distributed in trust to be used for the purpose of research to be performed and carried on by the Barrow Neurological Institute of Phoenix, Arizona. It rejected the petitions and statements of interest of the other 102 claimants. Kidd's holographic will provided: While the proceedings in the court below were extensive, the questions raised on this appeal by the admission to probate of this extraordinary document can in the main be determined perfunctorily. We note first, as did the court in Opinion of the Justices, 109 N.H. 335, 251 A.2d 330, at 330: The power to make a will is a power that belongs to the testator and is not subject to a veto power of the courts. So, unless limited by statute, a testator may dispose of his property by will as he pleases. In In re Greene's Estate, 40 Ariz. 274, 11 P.2d 947, 949, this Court said: And in In re Nolan's Estate, 56 Ariz. 353, 108 P.2d 385, 387, we said: Other courts have said: And see also, In re Woehr's Estate, 166 Cal. App. 2d 4, 332 P.2d 818, 826; In re Heaton's Estate, 404 Pa. 360, 172 A.2d 293, 296-297; Feiler v. Feiler, 149 Ohio 17, 77 N.E.2d 237, 240. Appellants are six of the 102 claimants whose statements of interest and claims were disapproved by decree of the court below. Four of the appellants, Emma G. Clausser, Joe H. Cerny, Joseph W. Still, M.D., and Russell Dilts, urge that the trial court erroneously ruled that a valid charitable trust was created by the words used in Kidd's will. They argue that the words in the residual clause, "* * * have this balance money to go in a reserach or some scientific proof of a soul * * *", are in the disjunctive, and that Kidd's intent was first, not to create a trust but to give an outright bequest to any person who had "scientific proof" of a soul which leaves the human body at death, and second, that a trust be established only if such "scientific proof" was not available. Appellant Clausser believes she has such proof. She claims she saw her soul leave her body during a volunteer experiment in Stuttgart, Germany in 1937. Appellant Cerny's proof is in the nature of an inductive argument stemming from biblical writings. Appellant Still argues that he has "some scientific proof" (without stating it) at the present time, but he wishes to do further research based upon a thesis developed from his work in the fields of biochemistry, physiology, psychology, and sociology. Russell Dilts' unverified petition and statement of interest asserted that since 1948 he has engaged in the pursuit of scientific knowledge of psychical and spiritual phenomena including manifestations of the human soul. In this court he incorporates in his argument the arguments contained in all the briefs filed by the other appellants. A further reference to the Still and Dilts claims will be made later. We think that the intent to make a testamentary trust rather than testamentary bequest is clear. The single most important element in the creation of a testamentary charitable trust is the manifestation by the testator of a charitable purpose. Kidd expressed the wish that research be conducted in a specific area the existence of a soul of the human body which leaves at death. Such a purpose could have been considered by the trial court as advancing education or religion. *558 Both educational and religious purposes have been recognized as charitable in nature, Restatement (Second), Trusts § 368, §§ 370-371 (1957). Although Kidd did not use language indicating the establishment of a trust, the absence of words of "trust" or "trustee" is not fatal. And see, In re Quinn's Estate, 156 Cal. App. 2d 684, 320 P.2d 219, and Wilson v. Franz, 359 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.Civ.App.). A literal reading of the clause "* * * have this money to go in * * * some scientific proof" is more indicative of the intention to create a trust than an absolute bequest. We gather from the record in the court below that as of the date of the execution of Kidd's will there was no accepted scientific proof of a soul of the human body. Accordingly, Kidd must have addressed this clause to the future, contemplating scientific research leading to proof of a soul which leaves the body at death. Kidd's will clearly evidences his belief in the basic elements of historic Christianity a belief in human responsibility, in a transcendent God, and in human survival of bodily death. Kidd was not deluded by modern secularism into assuming that the Christian view of the world is so dull and pointless that it is not worth investigating. The affirmation of God as taught by the Christian Creed the Communion of Saints, the Resurrection of the Body, and the Life Everlasting is more satisfying to the intellect and more enriching to the human personality than its etiolated substitute, scientific humanism, the pursuit of which has led to materialism and the lack of moral responsibility. The thrust of the attack made by the two remaining appellants is directed against that part of the judgment of the court below finding that the Barrow Neurological Institute is qualified to execute the trust. The record in this respect may be summarized as follows: The Barrow Neurological Institute was founded in 1962 as part of the St. Joseph's Hospital of Phoenix, Arizona. The general area of research carried on by Barrow is into the normal and abnormal functioning of the nervous system, which includes the brain, the spinal cord, sense organs, peripheral nerves and central control of muscular activity. Barrow carries on specific research studies into various aspects of the human nervous system to the end of increasing man's knowledge of its complex functions. Dr. Eduardo Eidelberg, Chief of the Laboratory of Neurophysiology, Chairman of the Department of Neurobiology, and Director of Research for the hospital, testified that Barrow has never and does not intend, at least in the foreseeable future, to do research in whether there exists a soul to the human body. He testified: *559 The impact of the totality of the testimony of the witnesses for Barrow Neurological Institute is that the phenomena laymen ordinarily ascribe to the soul can be explained as part of the functioning of the central nervous system and that Barrow would not attempt to isolate the soul from the central nervous system as a separate and distinct entity. Since Kidd left his estate for research or scientific proof of a soul "which leaves at death", he obviously contemplated that the soul was a separate entity, distinct from the body or its central nervous system and surviving the body's physical dissolution. Manifestly, the Barrow Neurological Institute does not qualify under the plain intent of Kidd's will. At least two of the appellants, the American Society for Psychical Research, Inc. and the Psychical Research Foundation, Inc., are qualified to carry out the specific purpose expressed in the will of James Kidd. The American Society for Psychical Research was formally organized in 1906, principally through the efforts of William James, thought generally to be the most eminent of American psychologists. This society has a working capital of approximately $700,000.00, it publishes a quarterly journal, and its membership has included such well known figures as Sigmund Freud, Arthur J. Balfour, Margaret Mead, and J.B. Rhine. The American Society for Psychical Research is now headed by Dr. Gardner Murphy, who is also presently the Director of Research of the Menninger Foundation. One of the stated purposes of the Society is psychical research in all of its aspects, of which "survival research" is one of its recognized subdivisions. As Dr. Murphy explained, "Psychical research is the study of psychological processes for which we have no physical explanation as physics now exist." Dr. Murphy further explained that most of the phenomena associated with the field of psychical research are some type of telepathy or clairvoyance or related processes. As to "survival research" itself, the American Society for Psychical Research studies and disseminates information as to "crisis apparitions" (whereby a person receives a "vision" of another person undergoing a crisis experience, often death, at another place), "deathbed visions" (whereby a dying person appears to undergo a transformation allowing him to see into another world), "physical changes in the surroundings" (whereby the death of a person is signaled by the disturbance of a physical object some distance away), and "out-of-the-body experiences" (whereby a person in a sleeping or comatose state appears to himself to wander forth from his body and take up a station some distance away, purportedly sometimes to be seen there by others). Dr. Murphy testified that the American Society for Psychical Research would use the Kidd funds to make further studies and experimentation to determine whether a measurable physical event occurs at the moment of death. Dr. Murphy testified that the American Society for Psychical Research would attempt to measure whether there are "material aspects in human psychic existence" by the use of such equipment as photography, especially infra-red photography, weight and pressure and temperature measures, photoelectric beams, and sound instruments. Dr. Murphy summarized the view of the American Society for Psychical Research as to how such experimentation would tend to prove there is a "soul" which survives at the time of death: The Psychical Research Foundation was founded in 1961 for the sole purpose of engaging in "scientific and educational activities proximately directed toward securing and disseminating reliable information with respect to the survival upon termination of the living organism of the mental, spiritual, and personality character of man or any parts or aspects of them." Joseph Gaither Pratt, president and member of its board of directors, is a member of the faculty of the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Virginia. His position is as a psychologist, in which position he does full-time research in the field of parapsychology. Pratt received an A.B. degree from Duke University, a master's degree in psychology, and completed his thesis and all requirements for a Ph.D. in 1936. He served as research assistant to Dr. J.B. Rhine at Duke University and thereafter spent two years with Dr. Gardner Murphy at Columbia University in experimental work in extrasensory perception. He rejoined Dr. Rhine as a member of his research staff, doing full-time research in parapsychology. There he stayed, with the exception of four years during the second World War, until 1964 when he joined the staff of the University of Virginia. Dr. Pratt testified that there are two principal areas in the field of psychology, the conventional, which is largely dedicated to attempting to understand behavior in human nature in terms of physical principles, and the parapsychological, which are those exceptional things which occur which come about by noting that there are exceptions that do not fit into the ordinary conventional physical considerations. Dr. Pratt has been the author and co-author of books in the field of parapsychology and has published some eighty to ninety articles on the subject. Dr. Pratt further testified that the Psychical Research Foundation was founded by Charles E. Ozanne who felt that there was a need for some organization that would more explicitly, more specifically concentrate on work in the area of survival interest through scientific investigation. He founded the Foundation in order that there be an organization that would be exclusively dedicated to that purpose. In addition to its board of directors, it has an advisory committee of such people as Professor Gardner Murphy, Professor C.D. Broad, who is described as a world famous philosopher at Cambridge University, author of several books concerned with the problem of the evidence bearing upon the survival question, and Professor H.H. Price of Oxford University, recently retired. Dr. Pratt stated that the net worth of the Psychical Research Foundation was somewhere between $300,000.00 and $350,000.00, in trust with the Wachobia Bank in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Pratt testified that the Foundation has been involved in direct experiments in the field of survival research and that research reports have been published in the literature of journals which are dedicated to the publication of religious and scientific work in this field. He testified that "soul" is a term that everyone in common language understands as applying to some aspect, a part of man's nature, which we generally conceive would survive death. It was his opinion that Kidd was concerned with having research done on the question of whether some aspect of man's nature survives and if it does, we can call this aspect "soul" or "spirit" or what you will. The Psychical Research Foundation has been from its inception engaged in such specific and restricted line of endeavor. It is apparent from what has been summarized of the purposes and operations of the American Society for Psychical Research and the Psychical Research Foundation that at least two organizations exist *561 which the court below could have found were competent to carry out the testamentary trust established by Kidd's will. The appellees Neurological Sciences Foundation and Barrow Neurological Institute urge that this appeal cannot be decided unless a transcript of the evidence of all 103 claimants is furnished on appeal, instead of only those parties involved in the appeal. But we think otherwise. The basis of the claim by the Barrow Neurological Institute is clearly expressed in the transcript of the testimony of its officers. They do not consider it possible to discover proof of a soul which leaves at death and, consequently, do not propose to attempt scientific research to that end. No other testimony can possibly change these facts. Consequently, the court does not need the testimony of other claimants in order to determine the merits of the claim of Barrow. The appellants Joseph W. Still and Russell Dilts assert that they wish to and are competent to seek scientific proof of a soul of the human body which leaves at death. Accordingly, this case is reversed with directions that the court below enter into a final determination as to which of the four appellants, Joseph W. Still, Russell Dilts, the American Society for Psychical Research or the Psychical Research Foundation, is most suitable to carry out the trust expressed in Kidd's will. Judgment reversed with directions. HAYS, V.C.J., LOCKWOOD, J., and McFARLAND, J., Retired, concur. Note: The Honorable JAMES DUKE CAMERON, Justice, having disqualified himself, the Honorable ERNEST W. McFARLAND, Justice, Retired, was called to sit in his stead. UDALL, Justice (dissenting): I am unable to agree in the reversal of this cause, as I am of the opinion that there was not a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in its selection of Barrow Neurological Institute as the claimant best suited to carry out the intent of the testator. The conclusions reached in the majority opinion can be summarized as follows: The first two conclusions by the majority opinion as listed above are consistent with the judgment of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[1] With these two conclusions by the majority, I agree. Although it was never stated in so many words, the thrust of the remaining conclusions reached by the majority is that *562 the trial court was guilty of an abuse of discretion in selecting Barrow Neurological Institute as the claimant best suited to carry out the research suggested by the will. With this conclusion by the majority I cannot agree, as I am of the opinion that such an abuse of discretion by the trial court is not shown by the record. This is not to say the four appellants designated by the majority opinion are not qualified rather, only that the record, in my opinion, does show them to be less qualified than Barrow Neurological Institute, and that the judgment of the trial court, concurred in by the Court of Appeals, should therefore be affirmed. The reasoning which has led me to the above conclusion can perhaps best be demonstrated by reference to the following questions: I. WHAT WAS KIDD'S INTENT? The rule to be followed by the courts in construing wills was stated in Newhall v. McGill, 69 Ariz. 259, 212 P.2d 764 (1949), to be as follows: As is stated above, Kidd's intent must be ascertained from the words of his will, taking into view the circumstances under which it was made. Kidd's holographic will provided:[2] The above is Kidd's will in its entirety. The trial court received no extrinsic evidence as to Kidd's intent. Therefore, it is necessary that Kidd's intent be construed by reference to the language in his will and in light of surrounding circumstances at the time of the execution of the instrument. As we stated in State ex rel. Goddard v. Coerver, 100 Ariz. 135, 412 P.2d 259 (1966): The directive by Kidd to have a preacher "say fare well" at his grave suggests that he had a personal conviction of the existence "of a soul of the human body which leaves at death." The subsequent language suggests a desire on his part to prove the existence of a soul to others, as he dedicated his estate to the purpose of developing "scientific proof" of the existence of such a soul. Kidd's will was executed in January, 1946, a time when scientific and technological developments were receiving considerable attention. Perhaps Kidd was of the opinion that if there was any way in which people generally could be convinced of the existence of a soul, it would be by the showing of "scientific proof" of such a fact. Kidd's understanding of the terms "research", "scientific", and "proof" may well have been consistent with common usage at the time of the execution of his will (1946). Common usage might best be discerned by reference to Webster's Dictionary.[3] Webster defines "research" as: "Scientific" is defined by Webster as: The dictionary defines "proof" as being: Consolidating these separate definitions might provide a basic working definition of the phrase "research or scientific proof." One such definition might be: "A critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation, conducted strictly in accordance with the principles of exact science, which would tend to develop or produce evidence having that degree of cogency which convinces the mind of a truth or fact." Additional insight into the concept of the scientific approach or method can be obtained by examination of testimony given and exhibits produced before the trial court. For example, Dr. Arthur J. Backrach, head of the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University, defined his understanding of the scientific approach or method as follows: After considering the words of the will and the circumstances under which it was made, and keeping the above definitions in mind, I am of the opinion that Kidd's primary goal was scientific proof, and that the reference to research and to a photograph of a soul leaving the human at death are merely suggestions as to means which might be employed in order to obtain such proof. I think this distinction is important, as it is my impression that the majority opinion places almost total emphasis on the means to be employed (i.e., the specific type of research) rather than the end result (i.e., scientific proof). I will expand upon this point later on in this dissent. II. COULD THE TRIAL COURT REASONABLY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT, OF THE CLAIMANTS BEFORE IT, BARROW WAS BEST QUALIFIED TO CARRY OUT THE TESTATOR'S INTENT? The judicial selection of a trustee to receive a bequest and administer the provisions of a trust is one which rests in the sound discretion of the court, involving matters of fact and judgment. The trial court in the instant case heard testimony and read exhibits presented by over 100 claimants, and, after due consideration of the various claims, entered its judgment which provided for the distribution of the residuary estate of James Kidd to Neurological Sciences Foundation, Inc., as Trustee, and Barrow Neurological Institute, in trust for the purpose expressed by decedent in his will. Each of the appellants on this appeal claims to be better entitled than Barrow to receive the residuary estate of decedent. The principal question is whether the trial court abused its discretion in selecting Barrow, rather than one of the appellants, to receive the residuary bequest of the decedent. In support of the judgment, the evidence presented before the trial court shows, in my opinion, that Barrow is well qualified to receive and administer the residuary bequest of the decedent in accordance with the terms of his will. These terms were in essence incorporated in the decree and were imposed as express conditions of the trust, and Barrow is required to file with the court at least annually a complete accounting of its administration of the trust. It is not necessary, in order to support the selection of Barrow, to find that none of the appellants is qualified to receive or administer the residuary bequest of the decedent. The determination is one that must properly be made by the trial court on the basis of all the evidence. So long as there is competent evidence to support *565 the selection of Barrow, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is my opinion that the evidence presented by Barrow, both by oral testimony and by exhibits, fully supports the judgment of the trial court. It is obviously impossible to quote a very large part of the trial record in an appellate opinion. However, I feel that certain portions of the record, as discussed hereafter, are representative of the testimony presented to the trial court and will tend to demonstrate that there is competent evidence to support the selection of Barrow by the trial court. This material will be summarized as: (A) evidence presented by Barrow; (B) evidence presented by the appellant; and (C) analysis and conclusion. A. Evidence Presented By Barrow The testimony and exhibits presented on behalf of Barrow which are most relevant to this dissent are as follows: Dr. Joseph Harris, the holder of a doctorate in physiological chemistry and a research professor in the Department of Chemistry at Arizona State University, served with Barrow Neurological Institute for five years and was the head of its Neurochemistry Laboratory. Dr. Harris testified that his laboratory is engaged in research on chemical changes in the nervous system operating in conjunction with other organs including the brain. In answer to a question as to whether his department was engaged in any research activity which is programmed to find the soul which leaves at the time of death, Dr. Harris stated that using the word "soul" as concerning or relating to the mind, then his department does attempt to measure certain changes in the brain as soon after death as possible. Dr. Harris stated that Barrow Neurological Institute offers a "unique opportunity for collaborative and a close multidiscipline investigation of the nervous system", to try "to obtain a complete understanding of the functioning nervous system." Dr. Eduardo Eidelberg, Chief of the Laboratory of Neurophysiology, Chairman of the Department of Neurobiology, and Director of Research for the hospital, described the function of Barrow Neurological Institute as relating primarily to the treatment of patients who suffer from neurological diseases, to the training of physicians in the specialties corresponding to the medical research in neurology, and to the conducting of specific research on brain function and diseases. Dr. Eidelberg described the brain as "the major part of the nervous system", which also includes the spinal cord, sense organs, peripheral nerves and the center control of muscular activity. Dr. Eidelberg discussed the research facilities of Barrow and stated that there are only two other neurological research institutions in Canada and the United States similar to Barrow. He described the areas of present research of Barrow, including a project on the effects of hallucinogenic drugs on certain aspects of brain function and a study on the development of the new-born brain. In answer to a question as to whether the research work being done at Barrow could fall within the research of proof of a soul of the human body which leaves at death, Dr. Eidelberg stated that he thought it was "not possible at the present time to divine exactly whether the soul has specific existence by and of itself, that is, as an independent entity or whether it is the expression of the function of the body, primarily of the central nervous system". In that latter respect, he stated it would be logical and reasonable to study out the nervous system operation to produce behavior as to what in common language is known as a "soul." He stated that he did not know of any current technique or current use in any laboratory that would furnish scientific proof of a soul, but that this would not preclude the possibility that such techniques might develop later. He added that if there were to be scientific proof of a soul, he could not think of any way in which the knowledge *566 could be acquired other than as a result of scientific research. The majority opinion states that the testimony of the officers of Barrow Neurological Institute shows that they "do not consider it possible to discover proof of a soul which leaves at death and, consequently, do not propose to attempt scientific research to that end." The majority opinion concludes that "manifestly, the Barrow Neurological Institute does not qualify under the plain intent of Kidd's will." With this interpretation of the record I disagree. The following testimony by Dr. Eidelberg on cross-examination is representative of that given by the Barrow witnesses, and may serve to clarify the issue. The body of evidence presented on behalf of Barrow Neurological Institute and Neurological Sciences Foundation discloses that while Barrow's research does not include as a separate function a program entitled "research into the existence of a soul", the several areas of neurological research carried on there do comprise a well-executed application of the scientific method of research into areas which either directly, or as a corollary of such research, might ultimately result in scientific proof of the existence of a "soul of the human body which leaves at death." B. Evidence Presented by the Appellants There were over 100 claimants who presented evidence to the trial court. Of *567 those, only six have appealed from the judgment of the trial court. The majority opinion concluded that two of the appellants, the American Society for Psychical Research and the Psychical Research Foundation, are organizations which the court below could have found were competent to carry out the testamentary trust established by Kidd's will. Also, that two other appellants, Joseph W. Still and Russell Dilts, asserted that they wish to and are competent to seek scientific proof of a soul of the human body which leaves at death. The majority opinion accordingly reversed the case with directions that the court below determine which of these four appellants is most suitable to carry out the trust expressed in Kidd's will. My objective at this point in this dissent is to demonstrate the basis for my opinion that the record does not show an abuse of discretion by the trial court. I believe this can best be done by comparing and contrasting the research methods and approach used in neurological research with that used in psychical research. In this section of the dissenting opinion, therefore, I will review portions of the evidence presented by the American Society for Psychical Research and the Psychical Research Foundation the two appellants which are engaged in psychical research, including survival research. Dr. Gardner Murphy, whose credentials are well-summarized in the majority opinion, is a recognized authority in the field of psychical research. Appearing before the trial court as a witness on behalf of the American Society for Psychical Research, Dr. Murphy described the nature of psychical research to be as follows: Other testimony by Dr. Murphy on direct examination: On cross-examination, Dr. Murphy was asked: In other testimony on cross-examination, Dr. Murphy discussed work he had done in other areas related to psychical research, *569 including experiments with hypnotism and suspended animation. Dr. Joseph Gaither Pratt, whose testimony on behalf of the Psychical Research Foundation was referred to in the majority opinion, indicated that the general field of parapsychology includes: On cross-examination Dr. Pratt was asked what particular experiments had been undertaken in the last three years by the Psychical Research Foundation: The testimony quoted above provides insight into the nature of the research performed by the American Society for Psychical Research and the Psychical Research Foundation. Some of the testimony given before the trial court was directed toward an evaluation of such research. For example, one of the persons testifying on behalf of the American Society for Psychical *570 Research was Dr. Frederick Dommeyer, a professor at San Jose State College. He was asked: It is interesting to note the similarity of this statement, by a witness testifying on behalf of one of the organizations engaged in psychical research, with that of Dr. Eidelberg, who testified on behalf of Barrow: This testimony by Dr. Eidelberg was quoted in the majority opinion as support for the conclusion by the majority that Barrow has not, and will not, do research as to whether there exists a soul of the human body which leaves at death. The majority reached this conclusion in spite of testimony by witnesses for Barrow to the contrary, including the statement by Dr. Eidelberg that if a change in technology made it possible to research the question directly, "we would jump into it right away." [See testimony of Dr. Eidelberg quoted earlier in this dissent.] One of the witnesses appearing before the trial court was uniquely qualified to analyze and compare the approach used in neurological research with that in psychical research. That witness was Dr. Arthur J. Bachrach, chairman of the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University and a consultant in neuropsychology at Barrow. Earlier in his career he had co-authored a book with Dr. Gardner Murphy of the American Society for Psychical Research, and had studied and worked in parapsychology at the University of Virginia.[4] Dr. Bachrach's definition of the scientific approach or method was quoted earlier in this dissent. He testified on direct examination that many scientists are leaving parapsychology research due to its inherent conflict with scientific experimental methods: On cross-examination Dr. Bachrach was asked for his opinion as to where to best start to study the soul leaving the body at the time of death. He replied: In this section of the dissent I have discussed some of the basic approaches used in psychical research as well as some of the problems which arise in attempting to perform experiments and develop evidence in accordance with standards acceptable to the general scientific community. The previous section of this dissent discussed the activities of Barrow in the field of neurological research. The next, and final, section of the dissent compares and contrasts psychical research with neurological research in order to reach some conclusions as to whether the trial court abused its discretion in selecting Barrow Neurological Institute as the claimant best suited to carry out the intent of the testator. C. Analysis and Conclusion At the beginning of this dissent, I stated what I believe James Kidd's intent to have been to convince people generally of the existence of a soul by the showing of "scientific proof" of such a fact.[5] I also suggested that a basic working definition for *573 the phrase "research or scientific proof" might be: The question in this case has not been merely whether the human soul does in fact exist, or of whether a given claimant was convinced in his own mind that he had proof of the existence of the human soul. Rather, the question has been that of determining which claimant might best demonstrate or develop "scientific proof" which would be of such a nature as to convince people generally of the existence of the human soul. Appellant American Society for Psychical Research and appellant Psychical Research Foundation have contended that their research activities are oriented more directly toward the question of the existence of the human soul than are the more conventional and perhaps less adventuresome research activities of Barrow Neurological Institute. Even if this contention is assumed to be true, however, it does not necessarily follow that those organizations are better qualified to carry out the testator's intent, as the question still remains as to how credible and convincing the results of such research would be to the scientific community and to people generally. The evidence developed by Barrow in its research activities has been of a type which is clearly acceptable to the scientific community and to people generally as being in accordance with generally accepted methods of scientific research. In fact, much, and perhaps most, of such evidence is of a nature as would be admissible in a court of law, although this element is not necessary to the determination of this case. On the other hand, it is my impression that much of the evidence developed through psychical research is considered questionable by the scientific community and unconvincing to people generally. As indicated by the record before this Court, and as discussed in both this dissent and the majority opinion, some of the primary areas of emphasis in the field of psychical research are telepathy, mediums, crisis apparitions, deathbed visions, out-of-the-body experiences, hypnotism, and suspended animation. Psychical research consists, to a large extent, of the collecting of anecdotal accounts of persons claiming to have experienced psychical phenomena of some type and of performing experiments which in many cases cannot be reproduced under controlled laboratory conditions. Many of these methods or theories are apparently considered questionable by the scientific community and unconvincing by people generally, and accordingly would not lend themselves to the establishment of "scientific proof", as that term has been defined herein. In fact, in a court of law, much of this evidence would be considered inadmissible as being "hearsay" evidence or in some other way failing to meet the standards established under the rules of evidence.[6] In considering the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in selecting Barrow Neurological Institute as the claimant best suited to carry out the intent of the testator, I consider it important to note that the trial court listened to and observed all of the witnesses and had for its consideration all of the exhibits introduced *574 into evidence, whereas on this appeal only a portion of the trial record is before this Court. The trial court was therefore in the better position to determine which claimant was best qualified to carry out the intent of the testator. The case presented complex questions of law and fact which required the exercise of sound judgment by the trial court. In my opinion, the trial court properly concluded that, of the claimants before it, Barrow was best qualified to carry out the testator's intent. For the reasons advanced above, I am of the opinion that there was not a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in its selection of Barrow Neurological Institute as the claimant best suited to carry out the intent of the testator. I would accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court. [1] The opinion of the Court of Appeals is at 12 Ariz. App. 58, 467 P.2d 770 (1970). [2] Spelling and punctuation are the same as in the original. [3] Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (Unabridged). The definitions as quoted above are worded the same in the edition of the dictionary which was in use in 1946. [4] Dr. Bachrach appeared before the trial court as a witness on behalf of Barrow Neurological Institute. His testimony is included in this section of the dissent, rather than in the preceding section with the testimony of other witnesses for Barrow, because of its value for purposes of comparing and contrasting neurological research with psychical research. [5] Apparently none of the evidence produced at the trial was such as would constitute existing scientific proof of a soul. There obviously is no guarantee that such proof will in fact be developed; however, there is apparently a possibility of such, and this case has proceeded on that assumption in attempting to determine which claimant might best carry out the testator's intent. [6] The trial court was most liberal in the admission of evidence offered before it by the claimants. The trial court sat without a jury and was therefore free to disregard such evidence as was not competent or material. Perhaps it was for this reason that the court allowed evidence to be presented by these appellants which may well have been considered inadmissible under a strict interpretation of the rules of evidence.