Court Opinion

ID: 9540923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:20:54.43418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:45.274674
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Royse, J.
I agree with the majority that this case must be reversed because of error in excluding the testimony of the Rev. William L. Hofius. In my opinion this is all that is necessary or proper for this court to decide in this case. Sec. 2-3233, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, providing in part as follows: “The Supreme Court may reverse or affirm the judgment below, in whole or in part, and remand the cause to the court below, but the court shall not reverse the proceedings any further than to include the first error.” (My emphasis).
I express no opinion as to the sufficiency of the evidence or on the tenuous reasoning (not relied upon or presented by the briefs of the parties) for holding the court did not err in permitting R. C. Parrish and Ralph Miller to testify as to matters communicated to them in the course of their professional relationship with the decedent.
Martin, J., concurs in this opinion.
Note. — Reported in 95 N. E. 2d 304.