Roberts v. Baker, S95A1313
| Decision Date | 20 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S95A1313,S95A1313 |
| Citation | 265 Ga. 902,463 S.E.2d 694 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. BAKER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Paul M. Hoffman, Deming, Deming, Born & Parker, Norcross, for Earl D. Roberts.
William P. Langdale, Jr., William P. Langdale, III, Langdale, Vallotton & Linahan, Valdosta, for Dorothy R. Baker et al.
Earl Roberts filed a petition to probate in solemn form the Last Will and Testament of his father, B.R. Roberts. Earl Roberts' brothers and sisters filed a caveat on the grounds that their father lacked the mental capacity and intention to execute the will and that he did so because of undue influence by Earl. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the caveators, and the trial court denied probate of the will and Earl's subsequent motion for new trial. Earl challenges the admissibility of certain evidence at trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. We affirm.
Evidence at trial revealed that B.R. Roberts suffered a life-threatening stroke on January 19, 1990. His neurological condition began to deteriorate and he experienced seizures and paralysis. Tests showed that he then suffered from a marked reduction in audio and reading comprehension, and verbal expression. During Roberts' hospitalization, Earl consulted with an attorney about drafting a will for his father. Earl carried on his father's farming enterprise and met with the attorney several times to give him specific instructions about the disposition of the father's property. Earl was present at the time of meetings between Roberts and the attorney. Roberts executed the will less than a month after the stroke. During the time prior to execution, he was suffering from a significant reduction in blood flow to the brain caused by arterial blockage, and appeared often to be confused. He was unable to comprehend sentences. A therapist opined to Earl and the attorney that Roberts would be unable to understand a complicated will. Roberts continued to have strokes and seizures until his death in 1992.
Prior to Roberts' death, Earl denied any knowledge of a will in the face of inquiries by his siblings. Even though Roberts had always treated his children equally, under the will, Earl was to receive a share of his father's estate more than four times that given to any of his brothers and sisters.
1. Earl contends that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the videotaped deposition of the caveators' expert, Dr. Davis, because Davis based his testimony solely upon the inadmissible hearsay of other experts' opinions, thereby acting as a mere conduit. The contention fails. The doctor's opinion was not premised solely on the out-of-court opinions of other medical personnel. Davis reviewed Roberts' medical records, which were admitted at trial without objection, and testified that his opinion was based on his experience and his review of the records as a whole. See Doctors Hosp. v. Bonner, 195 Ga.App. 152, 159(3), 392 S.E.2d 897 (1990). Even when ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Huff
...at the time he executed the contested will, he had recently suffered a debilitating stroke and was under medication. Roberts v. Baker, 265 Ga. 902, 463 S.E.2d 694 (1995). Thus, a lesser degree of influence would be required to overcome his free will. Bowman v. Bowman, 205 Ga. 796, 797(2), 5......
-
Leonard v. State, S98A0621.
...lack of personal knowledge presents a jury question as to the weight to be accorded the expert's opinion. See e.g. Roberts v. Baker, 265 Ga. 902, 903(1), 463 S.E.2d 694 (1995); King v. Browning, 246 Ga. 46, 47(1), 268 S.E.2d 653 (1980); McEver v. Worrell Enterp., 223 Ga. App. 627, 630(2), 4......
-
Jackson v. State
...to the weight which should be assigned the opinion. The evidence should go to the jury for whatever it's worth." (Punctuation omitted.) Roberts v. Baker.5 At trial, Jo Sternes, a physician's assistant, testified for the State as an expert witness in the area of sexual assault examinations. ......
-
Richey v. State, A03A0774.
...the opinion. The evidence should go to the jury for whatever it's worth." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Roberts v. Baker, 265 Ga. 902, 903(1), 463 S.E.2d 694 (1995). In addition, a ballistics expert testified and gave the testimony to which Richey objects here. Any testimony complaine......