Court Opinion

ID: 9771715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:51:49.101523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:35.635473
License: Public Domain

HEDGES, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the court’s opinion. I write separately to address a case relevant to appellant’s first point of error. The ease, Doyle v. State, 875 S.W.2d 21 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1994, no pet.), is close enough to our facts to bear comment.
In Doyle, the court considered testimony from prison guards that the defendant’s blows to another guard were intentional. 875 S.W.2d at 23. The court held that the testimony was admissible. Id. at 23. I respectfully disagree with the Tyler Court. Like the majority in this case, I believe that lay opinion testimony on the defendant’s mental state is, by its very nature, purely speculative, and thus improper.
The Doyle Court relied solely on Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 701. 875 S.W.2d at 23. Rule 701 allows opinion testimony by a lay witness, but only if the testimony is “helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” Tex.R.CRIM.Evtd. 701. No witness can give reliable testimony about what was actually in another person’s mind when the other person performed an act. It is a fact of human existence that no person can truly know what is in the mind of another. Therefore, one person’s opinion about what another person was thinking is by definition a speculative opinion. A speculative opinion does not help the jury to either (1) understand the witness’ testimony better, or (2) decide the question of the actor’s intent. Mere conjecture does not, and cannot, assist a jury.
■For these reasons, I do not believe that rule 701 supports the Doyle Court’s holding.
With these observations, I concur in the court’s judgment.