Court Opinion

ID: 9779334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:47:10.903572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:25.422210
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
The trial court did not err in excluding the psychologist’s opinion in this case because that expert witness admitted, in answer to the hypothetical question based upon the facts of this case:
Now, I don’t think anyone could estimate what that probability would be.
That candid admission clearly shows that the proffered testimony was speculative in nature. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to require a jury of lay witnesses to set sail upon “an amateur’s voyage on the fog-enshrouded sea” of psychology. See Hopkins v. State, supra at 221. There was no violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. None of the cases cited indicate that the trial court’s ruling in this case violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States or Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.