Opinion ID: 1806512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prejudicial remarks of the trial court.

Text: It is also contended that the trial court prejudiced the jury by suggesting that the doctor had to know the true nature of his condition. The comments of the court objected to are as follows: `Q. Does it also mean that it can be persistent but fluctuate from high to low? ` [Defendant's attorney ]: Your Honor, I am going to have to object to this question because I think that if we are speaking in terms of a specific disease that a further definition is required. If we are speaking in terms of simply a label to describe a particular physical phenomenon that that should be made clear. Because I think that the question gets into different things. ` The Court: Will the reporter read the question to me. `(Pending question read.) ` The Court: Well, the doctor is testifying as a physician based upon his own knowledge. He may answer. `[ Defendant's attorney ]: I recognize that. ` The Court: He may answer. `[ Defendant's attorney ]: I recognize that, your Honor. ` The Court: The Court has ruled. He may answer. `[ Defendant's attorney ]: I think I would like a clarification, however. I think the question should be asked in terms of either we are describing a condition or we are talking about a disease. I think the answer could be different from any given expert witness depending on which sense we are using the word hypertension. ` The Court: Then any answer the doctor gives to any question you have a right to have him clarify. In fact, I would like to know myself if he knows what was the cause of the fluctuating blood pressure if he went to a doctor for treatment for it. Now, generally, I mean, a patient asks a doctor what causes this. So, he must have been informed as to what the cause was that he was being treated for, and then if he was, as to what his own knowledge is as to what was the cause of it.' Q. Do you agree with the statement that it was customary at one time not to inform?  A. You are speaking of one time. Q. I see.  A. I can only speak about my information and knowledge.  Q. I see.  A. And it is not a common practice among most of the people with whom I am associated. But I do know, and you are right, that it has been done. And the point I think is properly taken.  The Court: Would you believe that there would be a likelihood though that if a doctor's blood pressure was taken the doctor would be informed?  A. It would be extremely likely that he would be told. Taken in their context in the record, we do not consider that the inquiries of the trial court constituted prejudicial error.