Court Opinion

ID: 9764665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:35:02.687403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:59.846974
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellee in his motion for rehearing contends that we erred in reversing and remanding this cause for the admission in evidence of that portion of the insanity judgment containing the special issues and the jury’s answers thereto, especially special issue No. 4 and the jury’s answer that appel-lee’s present attack of insanity had lasted about three years, because appellant’s objection in the trial court was to the admission of the judgment and special issues as a whole and not to any specific part thereof. At the time the insanity judgment and special issues were offered the following colloquy occured between the trial court and the attorney for appellants, Hon. Dewey Lawrence, and appellee’s attorney, Hon. Rex Emerson:
“Mr. Emerson: We offer this instrument marked plaintiff’s exhibit 6 in evidence, being judgment and special, issues in lunacy in the case of the State of Texas v. Paul Riviere.
“The Court: What is the date of it?
“Mr. Emerson: Filed in 1946.
“Mr. Lawrence: To which we object, it is anterior to the incident at issue, and it is immaterial and irrelevant.
“The Court: I .think in view of the fact you introduced a letter in which it was stated about this, that this is admissible, in view of that.
“Mr. Emerson: That’s why we are trying to get this introduced.
“Mr. Lawi-ence: I read the letter and nothing was said about what was done on any adjudication about it.
“The Court: It referred to a trial for insanity, and this is the trial.
“Mr. Lawrence: How do you know ? It doesn’t say; it doesn’t refer to this trial; and doesn’t refer to the results of it; it was merely a passing statement of this man; it doesn’t say whether he was convicted or not convicted.
“The Court: I think in view-of the fact you put the other in, that is admissible.
“Mr. Lawrence: If he is insisting on it, we will be happy to rely on our bill of exception.
“Mr. Emerson: I will read this.
“(Reporter’s Note: Judgment and special issues in lunacy ¾ which had been identified as Plaintiff’s .Exhibit 6, was read to the jury by Mr. Emerson.)!”
It is clear from the above that the only objection leveled at this testimony by appellants was that it was immaterial and irrelevant. This objection was to the offer as a whole, that is, the judgment of insanity and the special issues and not to any particular portion of same. Since appellants had introduced the letter written by appellee to appellants, over the objection of appellee, “that it was the act of an insane person at this particular time under a proper adjudication of insanity as of the date of the instrument (letter) 4 — 21-48, therefore it would not be competent testimony.” The decretal portion of the insanity judgment was admissible, as held in our original opinion, to counteract the letter theretofore introduced by appellants. This being the case a general objection to the whole of tke evidence, where a portion was admissible, would not reach the inadmissible part of same unless i,t was specifically pointed out, and we were in error in holding otherwise *530in our original opinion. In Brown & Root v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624, 180 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Com.App., opinion approved by Sup. Ct.), by Judge Hickman, it is said: “A general objection to evidence as a whole, whether it be oral or documentary, which does not point out specifically the portion objected to, is properly overruled if any part of it is admissible.”
For the reason indicated above appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.