Opinion ID: 1392841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: psychiatrist's opinion

Text: Before trial, Dawkins filed a motion in limine to prevent any testimony by one witness as to their opinion about the credibility of another witness. The trial judge did not specifically rule on this issue at that time, but he did state that he didn't know of any provision that allows one witness to give their opinion relative to the credibility of another opinion by another witness. During the testimony of Dr. Banks, a psychiatrist who had treated Pamela, the solicitor posed the following question  Based on your examination and your observations of Pamela, are you of the impression that her symptoms are genuine?, to which the doctor answered, yes. The judge sustained an objection. Dawkins moved for a mistrial. Instead of ruling on the motion, the judge gave the following instruction to the jury: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury panel, people can't come in and give their opinions as to what they feel took place. That's not appropriate. The only thing that witnesses can do is to come in and tell you what they've seen and what they've observed. It's solely left up to you, ladies and gentlemen, to make a determination as to the facts in this case. So, you would please disregard the last statement made by this witness. That's an encroachment on your province to decide this case based on what you've seen and heard, free from anyone else's opinions. The judge then denied the motion for mistrial on the grounds that the curative instruction cured any prejudice which may have resulted because of the statement. Using the general principles discussed above, to-wit, that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to grant or deny a mistrial and that curative instruction usually cure any prejudice caused by the admission of incompetent evidence, we conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the mistrial. Although it was improper for the prosecutor to pose this question, it was not of such magnitude to effect the outcome of the trial. Therefore, we find that the curative instruction was sufficient under the circumstances.