Court Opinion

ID: 9536118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:55:08.30282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:27.595867
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McWilliams
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent, as in my view the error, if any, in the cross-examination of one Ruby Steffen, a seventy-five-year old graphoanalyst called as an expert witness by the estate, does not constitute prejudicial error. Actually the particular cross-examination which according to the majority was both erroneous and prejudicial consists of only three or four questions in a record consisting of over 2,000 folios. As concerns the particular cross-examining questions deemed by the majority to be improper, the witness agreed with the content of several of the questions thus propounded. As concerns one of the other questions believed to be objectionable by the majority, counsel for the estate even stipulated that the question propounded was a “correct statement.” Under such circumstances I for one am disinclined to make a mountain out of what I sincerely believe to be a molehill. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Kelley concurs in the foregoing dissent.