Court Opinion

ID: 6467112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-26 14:07:22.707132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:53:42.391329
License: Public Domain

Bantz and Hamilton, JJ. (concurring). — We fully concur in the opinion of Justice Collier in this case, except as to that portion which holds that a nonexpert may not state his opinion or conclusion as to the sanity or insanity of a person whose mental soundness or capacity is under consideration. When a nonexpert is shown to be qualified, by reason of opportunity for knowing and observing the person under investigation, he may not only state what he has observed in the conversation or conduct of such person tending to indicate his mental condition, but the nonexpert may also state his conclusion or opinion as to the ultimate fact, founded as it is or may be upon a series of facts more or less symptomatic, and not susceptible of intelligent narration. When a witness testifies that a person appeared to be angry or sick, he states a conclusion or opinion based upon a number of symptomatic facts which could not be adequately detailed so as to photograph to the jury the same impression which they made upon the mind of the observer when they were seen, and the statement of the conclusion can alone describe the facts seen. The case in Massachusetts gives many illustrations of this rule, and it is now well established that the same rule is applicable to a nonexpert, as in the case at bar. Upon this subject Mr. Greenleaf says: “But where the witness has had opportunity for knowing and observing the conversation, conduct, and manner of persons whose sanity is in question, it has been held, upon grave consideration, that the witness may depose, not only to particular facts, but to the opinion or belief as to the sanity of the party, formed from such actual observation;” “that nonexperts, who have had opportunities to observe a person, may give their opinion of his sanity, at the same time stating their reasons, and the facts observed upon which they based their opinion.” 1 Greenl. Ev. [4 Ed.] 532; Whart. Cr. Ev. [9 Ed.], secs. 417, 458, 460.