Court Opinion

ID: 9709850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:56:03.464884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:48.544630
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
A major issue in this case was the defendant's mental status at the time of the offense. In response to the filing of defendant's Notice of Defense of Mental Disease or Defect, the court appointed three (3) psychiatrists to examine the defendant, and then called them to testify at trial. Following examination by the court, the trial judge restricted each side to cross-examinations of twenty (20) minutes per side (fifteen minutes per side as to one of the psychiatrists). Such limitations of time for cross-examination, particularly as to the expert witnesses whose testimony critically impacts a crucial issue in the case, cannot be condoned. This is particularly true where the limitation is made in advance, thereby precluding any reasonable relationship to the substance of the issues counsel may desire to address in cross-examination. Imposing such an advance time limitation compels counsel to so constrict cross-examination, omitting areas of inquiry or refraining from proper follow-up questions, as to render meaningless any requirement that counsel await the expiration of the alotted time, and then pose further objection and offer of proof. I would find the advance time limitation in this case to be an unconstitutional denial of fair trial.
During the defense cross-examination of one of the psychiatrists, the court sustained the State's objections to a hypothetical question on grounds it did not require the opinion to be given "within a reasonable medical certainty." Notwithstanding the trial court's broad discretion in controlling examination of expert witnesses, this Court has expressly recognized that such "certainty" should not be a prerequisite for admissibility. In Noblesville Casting Div. of TRW v. Prince (1982), Ind., 438 N.E.2d 722, we explained:
Once the foundation has been established, the question remains whether an expert witness should be permitted to give an opinion or conclusion absent a requisite degree of certainty in the opinion or conclusion. In turn, if a degree of certitude is required, a companion question is presented: what degree of certitude-as defined in testimonial terms such as "possibly," "could have been," "educated guess," "probably," "more likely than not," "reasonable scientific certainty," "to a demonstrable certainty," or "inevitably"-should be demanded?
It is readily apparent that an attempt to quantify degrees of certitude in terms such as those employed by witnesses does, to some extent, inject semantics *685into a matter of expert opinion testimony. The various phrases and words do not, in and of themselves, connote exact degrees of certainty or conclusiveness; usage of any particular term by an expert witness, as a consequence, may turn on the manner in which a question is propounded or the witnesses's subjective assessment of the meaning of the phrase or word used to express the opinion. See, e.g., State v. Austin (1976), 52 Ohio App.2d 59, 368 N.E.2d 59 (expert testified that he regarded "reasonable medical certainty" as up in the "ninety-nine point nine-nine percentage range").
At the same time, to hinge the question whether an expert's opinion is admissible and probative on the willingness and ability to say that such-and-such is "reasonably certain," as opposed to "probable" or "possible," is to impose on the expert a question which elevates the law's demand for certainty in language over the state of the particular art and the value of the advances made therein. Medicine, for example, is not yet an exact science; to demand reasonable certainty in medical opinions places a sometimes insurmountable barrier in the face of the candid and straightforward medical expert. * * * 438 N.E.2d at 727.
While the trial court may properly require a hypothetical question to disclose the degree of certainty or probability to be applied, the language of the majority opinion tends to obscure the proper standard. By approving the trial court's "reasonable medical certainty" restriction, the majority opinion would detract from and dilute the wisdom of the decision in Noblesville Casting, supra. This I oppose.
The trial court also refused to permit psychiatrists to testify regarding their expert opinions concerning the defendant's general intent at the time of the incident, as distinguished from her general ability to form intent and her general mental capacities at the time of the alleged crime. The majority opinion finds support for this distinction with the contention that the excelud-ed opinion is improper expert testimony upon an ultimate issue for the jury. This rationale is contrary to our decision in Woods v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 581, 372 N.E.2d 178:
But the old rule that a witness may not give an opinion of an ultimate fact question has been abrogated in our State by Rieth-Reiley Construction Co., Inc. v. McCarrell (1975), Ind.App., 325 N.E.2d 844.
I cannot agree with the expressed reasoning of the majority opinion which would retreat from the above-expressed rule in Woods, as a general rule of evidence.
This problem is addressed in Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as follows:
(a) except as provided in subsection (b), testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it ambraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
(b) no expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.
Rather than the broad revision of the rule which may be inferred from the majority opinion, the approach of the federal rules of evidence is more reasonable. It would continue the present rule in general, but apply an exception which, in the instant case, would support the ruling of the trial court on this issue.
It should be noted however, that the trial court's direct examination of a psychiatrist had already opened the door to this line of questioning. The trial court asked the psychiatrist whether the defendant, at the time of the crime, had the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to legal requirements. The psychiatrist responded that, in his opinion, the defendant lacked this capacity and was insane when the crime occurred. Therefore, whatever the propriety or basis *686for the trial court's ruling on the cross-examination question, substantially the same evidence had already been presented during direct examination and the defense was not prejudiced by the ruling.
Finally, I dissent from the majority opinion with respect to the propriety of Preliminary Instruction 5:
The rule of law which throws around the defendant the presumption of innocence, and requires the State to establish beyond a reasonable doubt, every material fact averred in the information is not intended to shield those who are actually guilty from just and merited punishment, but is a humane provision of the law, which is intended for the protection of the innocent, and to guard as far as human agencies can, against the conviction of those who are innocent and unjustly accused of crime.
This instruction is prejudicial and its use should be discouraged. While previous decisions may have granted tacit approval to its use, the instruction contains a potential for insidious interference with the right to fair trial. A jury receiving this instruction is likely to infer that the presumption of innocence applies only to innocent defendants, and not to those "actually guilty." In truth, the presumption does clothe all defendants with the presumption of innocence requiring guilt to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition to creating a false impression regarding the presumption of innocence, the context of the instruction may suggest to some jurors that the defendant is being singled out as one of "those who are actually guilty" and who deserves "just and merited punishment." Jurors are likely to infer that, otherwise, the judge would not make such a statement.
If this instruction does not constitute reversible error in the instant case in view of the other instructions, we should at least condemn its use in future criminal cases.
SHEPARD, J., concurs.