 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reed v. State8/31/2001
cess in the middle of trial to search for an expert.
The Texas Supreme Court has addressed the competence of a lay jury, without the guidance of an expert in the field, to evaluate technical medical evidence and to apply that evidence in resolving a fact issue in the case. In a medical malpractice action, unless the mode of treatment "is a matter of common knowledge or is within the experience of the layman, expert testimony will be required to meet this burden of proof." This well established rule continues to govern cases in which a lay jury is required to link technical and specialized evidence, outside their experience, to a fact issue. A lay jury cannot be expected to evaluate this evidence and make an informed decision regarding proof of any link between the evidence and the fact issue without the assistance of an expert in that technical or specialized field.
The documents that comprise defendant's exhibit number two do not, on their face, establish a connection between Appellant's mental condition and the voluntariness of her confession to LeNoir. The fact that Appellant was undergoing treatment for certain psychiatric conditions at times prior to and subsequent to her confession is not sufficient, in and of itself, to show that Appellant was unable to make a knowing and voluntary waiver of her rights. Nor is it conclusive on the issue of whether Appellant was subjected to undue coercion as a result of her mental state. In the absence of an expert witness to assist the jury in understanding the 149 pages of medical documentation that Appellant sought to place before them, and to link the information contained in those documents to the issue of whether Appellant's confession was voluntarily made, admission of the records would have created an impermissible danger of misleading the jury and confusing the issues. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court acted well within its discretion in excluding the records from evidence. Consequently, we overrule Appellant's sole point.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Appellant's only point on appeal, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
PUBLISH
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|