Opinion ID: 2200119
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Feldner argued that John H. failed to prove elements of the specific insane delusion relied upon, an induced psychotic disorder or shared paranoid delusion. Feldner directed our attention to the outline of this disorder given by John H.'s psychiatric expert: 1. Emma suffered from the insane delusion that John H. was not John J.'s son and passed this delusion on to John H.; 2. Emma was extremely dominant in her relationship with the submissive John J.; and 3. This induced psychotic disorder usually dissipates when the relationship between the dominant person and the submissive person ends. Feldner argued that there was insufficient evidence that Emma believed John H. was not John J.'s son, that Emma was insane, or that Emma dominated John J. In addition, Feldner pointed out that John H.'s psychiatric expert had never met either Emma or John J., so that he was expounding on their mental conditions without sufficient foundation in fact. Pointing to testimony that John J. was an assertive person who made his own decisions and managed his own life, Feldner argued that the evidence demonstrated that Emma did not dominate John J. Coupled with a lack of any evidence about mental illness on the part of either Emma or John J., Feldner argued that the usual predicates for the rare induced psychotic disorder were not present. Moreover, since Emma died over 10 years before John J.'s last will, the usual dissipation of this rare disorder after termination of the relationship was not present. As a legal matter, John H. only had to prove an insane delusion on the part of John J., the one who made the wills, not on the part of Emma, his mother. To the extent that John J.'s mental condition was affected by his relationship with his mother, we think there was sufficient evidence about Emma's dominance to fairly permit expert testimony on the subject. According to testimony by Bessie, Emma insisted on strange sleeping arrangements in the Flaherty home after the baby was born. John J. no longer slept with his wife but shared a bed with his mother. At age 32, John J. complied. There was evidence, through Bessie's testimony, that it was Emma who first suggested that the baby was not John J.'s. To begin with, John J. did not share this suspicion. He married Bessie; he named his boy; and he played with him. Emma insisted that John J. not even play with the baby, distorting a father's natural behavior. This evidence was sufficient to infer that John J. was not willing to disagree with Emma, accepted her beliefs, and was dominated by her. This was sufficient predicate for an expert opinion. NDREv 703 says that, [t]he facts or data ... upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing.