HomeMy WebLinkAbout0961 ,
. ~
~ 1
`t ,
.
~
~ i
1
. { .
~
~,~~riu,lic:~lly r:?1 lc~ci c~r ~•;~-c~Cv R~c•r 1:~Lhc~r Zncl visit.t•d hi.n~ in
i~ j c~l' i clri c~t~ ~;c~~~er:?1 ~~c~-:~:~ i rn~:; . i.i s~~ Lc•s t i tictl l.hat wltet~ she
sat~ Tommy at I:mma Lou's fw~eral in Uecember of 197$, his
- physical condition was bad, but he ~;new her. and conversed
wittt her. During a March, 1979 visit, Tommy was sedated~
would repeat himself and sometimes doze off. However, Lisa,
testified that he treated her in a normal father-daughter
fashian. The rule of law concerning lay witness opinion is .
found in Ric~ v._Pack, 306 ~:y. 777, 209~ S.W.2d 327 (1948).
Such an oyinion may be stated only after the witness has
testified to facts sufficient to support Clie opinion.
Lisa's testimony reveals no such facts. While her father's
health was certainly deteriorating, there was nothing in her
'!I .
testirzony from wliich she could have concluded that he did
~ ~
~ not know the extent vf his property or the ~bjects of his
f affection. The cour.t properly excluded the testimony.
~ Appc~ll:ants next arfue thaL the deposition of Dr.
l:ay Hays was itr.properly excludeci. Dr. Hays, a psychiatrist~
~ had never known Tomn?y, but had studied some of his medical
~
x
~ recorc:,. Dr_ Y.ays' de~os.ition was opposed because his
~ opin-ions were co«cliecl i.n terms of possibilities. Dr. Hays
4
` sCated thrit wilet:l~er Tom.my had capacity to cxecute a will on
.1~inuary 9, 197~1 rtepc~nc;ec3 entirety on his metabolic state.
; - I f cc•~ t:~ i ti conci i t i~~n~: c•x, i s t c~cl c~n J:inur~ry 9, 1979, 'I'c~mmy m.~y
i;c~~ hciv~ hacl c.?~>a~•ity Co exE•cute the wil1. ~he tri~l eourt
rxclucic~~1 l:he clepo>itiun hecause r_he appe2lants could not ~
x
~
~ ~
~ -5-
~
~ a(l1iR( •~1J6 P~GE J50
~
5