HomeMy WebLinkAbout0962 r'
f
t
~ ,
.~i
. . ~ ~ ;
esi.~it~l i:s}~ ~•:t~?~~~; ~'C~I~IIl~ 1C3[1s cictu~+lly c•xist~~ct on January 9Cli.
Sincc~ an cxpcrt c~}>iilion must bc based upon probabili~y or
certainty raLhc~r than a mere possibility, ~ae believe the
courC rulecl correctly. Seaton v. Rosenburg, Ky., 573 S.W.2d ~
333 (1978).
The a~pe11ST1C5 additionall_y contenc~ that Dr. Ilays'
depositior? relates to the issue of undue influence, because
Tommy's condition could have provided the opportunity for
unclue influence to l~ave heen exercised. This argument was
not presented to the court below. In any event; as will be -
iater discussed~, there ~aas not sufficient evidence of undue ~
influence presen~ed. Therefore, a mere showing of oppor-
~ tunity in the tesCimony of Dr. ~'says would not have provided
li the evic!c~nce necessary to submiL- the issue of ur?di~e in-
f ~
f fluenc:e ta thc jury. ~
~ The court also refused to allaw Meek to testify
~
:
~ concernin~; the ~enei-al effects vf Tomrny's illness as iC
~ relatcd to T~mmy's relatianship with 3ean: 2-~eek was per-
~ mitted to cite speci_fic instances where he had faund 'I'ommy
~
~ ~o ha~~e h~haved irration<-~lly ar where hc haci I~eLieved Jean
r
~ influenced Tommy. The testimon~ concerning Jean's alleged
~
inEluc'Ile't• ll~i : tc~ t hc~ c•ffect ti~r~t ,T~an determirr~d eertain
.
t ~
' i tems Y~~ t~e hnu~,h~ for thr jc~~~:c~l ry st:orc~ ancl ~~~as a] lowed hy
~
r
~ ToTr,mv to r~~rn~~~e le:~c~lry fr~n? thc si~rc~ t~ sr.l L autside. ~ti'c
~r<> nc~t 1>~~licve the~;c• facCs c~n~t;~utecl ~uf£icient e~~idence
~
- from wi~icl~ t~teek could havc sC<~tecl an opinion. See Rice v_
~
r
~ i .tt'1~., :;ti1~1 ,i.
~
~
' • - F' - dn~;K ~6 ~a~E ~~J9
~