Court Opinion

ID: 9586965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:16:56.255235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:57.966358
License: Public Domain

Judge PHILLIPS
concurring.
Though I agree that error prejudicial to defendant has not been shown and that he would almost certainly be convicted if retried, some evidence that the court not only received, but assisted in presenting, was so grossly erroneous that it requires disapproval, lest it be repeated to another defendant’s prejudice. A doctor, who never saw the victim of defendant’s assault until two *616months following the injury, was not merely permitted, but was directed, to answer the following question:
Q. Do you know the cause of Michael Pace’s brain damage? (Emphasis added.)
This manifestly improper question did not ask for the doctor’s opinion, but his knowledge, which he did not have. And its er-roneousness was accentuated by the fact that it had been asked before and answered sensibly, though unresponsively, that Pace’s injury occurred two months before he met him. Nevertheless, instead of leaving the District Attorney to his own devices or suggesting that he ask a proper question, as would have been appropriate, His Honor admonished the witness to listen to the question and answer it as stated, and told the District Attorney, “ask him your question again.” In that setting that the witness then professed to know what he obviously did not know, that the cause was a bullet wound, is not surprising. In a closer case this aggravated impropriety on the court’s part would require a new trial, in my opinion.