Court Opinion

ID: 9674175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:24:17.01968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.929954
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge,
dissenting.
The conviction was predicated upon Subdivision 8 of Art. 1147, P.C., which renders an assault aggravated when committed “with premeditated design, and by the use of means calculated to inflict great bodily injury.”
Here is the question propounded to Dr. Taylor:
“Doctor, in your opinion, if a man the age and size of Harrison Luhn was beaten about the head by a person the size of this defendant, Cordero, with his fists, and kicked in the region of the right loin, where you indicated Mr. Luhn had some contusions, by an adult male, with his foot with a shoe on that foot, would that be a means calculated to produce great bodily injury?”
The witness answered the question in the affirmative.
When my brethren hold such question and answer to be legitimate and proper, they have effectually destroyed the rule, and all the authorities supporting that rule, that a witness cannot express, by his testimony, an opinion on the very issue the jury was trying.
The issue the jury was trying was whether the means used were calculated to produce great bodily injury.
The question and answer had all the force and effect of the *167doctor’s telling the jury that in his opinion the appellant was guilty.
Heretofore, it has been the rule that no witness, expert or nonexpert, was authorized to testify before the jury and express to them his opinion as to the very question or issue that they must determine by their verdict. Hill v. State, 134 Texas Cr. Rep. 163, 114 S.W. 2d 1180; Langford v. State, 124 Texas Cr. Rep. 473, 63 S.W. 2d 1027. It was also the rule that a medical expert could not give an opinion upon matters about which the jurors were as well qualified to speak as the witness, himself. Davis v. State, 114 Texas Cr. Rep. 72, 24 S.W. 2d 417; Boles v. State, 109 Texas Cr. Rep. 47, 5 S.W. 2d 509; Seaton v. State, 112 Texas Cr. Rep. 301, 16 S.W. 2d 823; Yeager v. State, 109 Texas Cr. Rep. 213, 3 S.W. 2d 808.
But now, according to the majority holding here, the state is free to call witnesses, expert or nonexpert, and have them testify that, based upon the facts in evidence, it is their opinion that the accused is guilty of the offense charged.
I respectfully enter my dissent.