Court Opinion

ID: 9676429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:24:17.185028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.583695
License: Public Domain

ESQUIVEL, Justice
dissenting.
In my opinion appellant’s objections are sufficient to preserve appellate review of the complained of construction. I therefore disagree with the majority opinion in its holding that the trial court’s instruction complained of was not reversible error.
I am of the opinion that appellants were prejudiced thereby. The instruction in*732formed the jury of the effect of their answers.
As pointed out by the majority, the two issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence were correctly defined by the court to the jury and were all the jury were asked about and should have been interested in. The instruction in question was not necessary to enable the jury to in any manner pass upon the testamentary capacity of the deceased or whether she was unduly influenced. The underscored portion of the instruction almost tells the jury that they should disregard evidence of unnatural disposition of property; this denied appellants a determination by the jury of unnatural disposition, a factor that can and should be determined by a jury in arriving at the question of whether or not there was undue influence.
For these reasons I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for a new trial.