Opinion ID: 1058311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 56

Heading: Testimony of Patricia Allen

Text: Patricia Allen testified at the penalty phase as a speech language pathologist. She testified that she evaluates people with brain injuries to determine if they have been affected by the brain injury. She explained that language is a code that reflects how someone is thinking. She then testified that, in evaluating a patient, she would look at their reading and writing and the words they put together in sentences, we would also look at their thinking skills; things such as their ability to attend, to remember, to solve problems and to reason. Things like that. She further explained that a speech language pathologist was more involved in treatment and helping people with brain injuries to function, while a neuropsychologist would be more involved in the evaluation of how the brain is working and the behavior of the individual. Later in defense counsel's direct examination of Ms. Allen, counsel asked how appellant's brain injury would have impacted his ability to conform to the rules established in the home. The State objected, arguing that such was outside her area of expertise. The court overruled the objection, and the witness responded. Next, after Ms. Allen confirmed that people with brain injuries have difficulty with rules, defense counsel asked: How so? Again, the State objected to the questioning as being outside Ms. Allen's area of expertise. This time the court sustained the objection. It is the longstanding principle that the propriety, scope, manner and control of examination of witnesses is within the trial court's discretion. Harris, 839 S.W.2d at 72. Ms. Allen testified that she, as a speech language pathologist, was more involved in treatment and helping people with brain injuries to function, while a neuropsychologist was more involved in the evaluation of how the brain is working and the behavior of the individual. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in precluding Ms. Allen from testifying as to how a person with a brain injury would have difficulty with rules. Moreover, as the trial court found, any such error in precluding the testimony was harmless. Appellant did not make an offer of proof. Therefore, he failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the trial court's ruling. See State v. Galmore, 994 S.W.2d 120, 125 (Tenn.1999) (although an offer of proof is unnecessary to preserve this issue, it may be the only way to demonstrate prejudice). Furthermore, Ms. Allen and the other defense experts testified at length as to appellant's physical and mental abnormalities and the effects of the same. Therefore, any error in sustaining the State's objection was harmless. This issue is without merit.