Opinion ID: 1910611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Necessity for a Remand

Text: Because Dr. Walker's testimony was central to the defense theory of the case, we cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the trial court's exclusion of this testimony, if ultimately in error, was harmless. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). On the other hand, because the record does not establish as a matter of law that the second and third Dyas criteria for admissibility have been met, we cannot say that the conviction should be reversed. Accordingly, we must remand the case for a trial court determination of admissibility consistent with this opinion. The court may take additional evidence or not, in its discretion. [28] If the trial court then rules that the testimony is admissible, it shall order a new trial. If the testimony is ruled inadmissible, appellant shall be entitled to appeal that ruling. [29]