Smith v. State, 8 Div. 378
Citation | 82 So.2d 296,263 Ala. 1 |
Decision Date | 18 February 1955 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 378 |
Parties | Alma SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
We have received the following communication from the Judges of the Court of Appeals certifying to us, under the provisions of Code 1940, Tit. 13, § 88, questions of law as to which said Judges differ, to wit:
'The Judges of this Court are in disagreement and unable to reach an unanimous conclusion as to certain controlling questions in the case of Smith v. State from Morgan Circuit Court, now pending in this court.
'The defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree under an indictment charging murder in the first degree. Upon arraignment she interposed pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
'On the trial she introduced several witnesses whose testimony tended to sustain her plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. In rebuttal the State offered Dr. J. B. Wiley. The record discloses the following:
'The following abstract questions are hereby certified to your court for an opinion as guidance to our court in said cause:
'(1) Is a regularly licensed physician, by virtue of that fact, qualified as an expert to give opinion evidence as to sanity or insanity?
'(2) If your answer to the foregoing question is in the negative, then is a regularly licensed physician by virtue of his association with the patient, such as is disclosed by the quoted portion of the record, thereby rendered qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the field of mental diseases?
It seems to be well-established in this jurisdiction that, as a general proposition, a physician who is qualified and licensed under Alabama law to engage in the general practice of medicine is qualified as an expert to formulate an opinion as to the sanity or insanity of a person, although such physician is not a specialist in mental diseases. Tullis v. Kidd, 12 Ala. 648, 649, 650; McAllister v. State, 17 Ala. 434, 437, 438, 52 Am.Dec. 180; In re Carmichael, 36 Ala. 514, 522-524; De Phue v. State, 44 Ala. 32, 39; Braham v. State, 143 Ala. 28, 38 So. 919; Odom v. State, 174 Ala. 4, 7, 8, 56 So. 913; Fondren v. State, 204 Ala. 451, 452, 453, 86 So. 71; Rhodes v. State, 232 Ala. 509, 510, 168 So. 869; White v. State, 237 Ala. 610, 612, 188 So. 388; Towles v. Pettus, 244 Ala. 192, 197, 12 So.2d 357; Stallworth v. Ward, 249 Ala. 505, 507, 31 So.2d 324. However, the principle is recognized in some of the decisions that a physician cannot express his opinion as an expert when such opinion is based on his examination or observation of a person, unless such examination or observation was with reference to the person's mental condition. Smarr v. State, 260 Ala. 30, 35, 36, 68 So.2d 6; Wise v. State, 251 Ala. 660, 664, 38 So.2d 553; Woods v. State, 186 Ala. 29, 32, 33, 65 So. 342; Porter v. State, 140 Ala. 87, 91, 92, 94, 37 So. 81; Kroell v. State, 139 Ala. 1, 5, 6, 13, 14, 36 So. 1025. This is not to say that a physician is incompetent to express an opinion as a non-expert when the opinion is based on his examination or observation of a person without reference to his mental condition. Of course, when so testifying, the rules applicable to non-experts apply.
We quote the following from Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense (1954), pp. 273, 274, 277, as bearing on the question under consideration:
'In general, any person who is able to give the jury appreciable help upon a subject in which special knowledge is necessary or helpful in arriving at a correct inference from the facts proved, is qualified to testify as an expert on that subject. Just how much skill, knowledge, and experience a witness must have in order to qualify as an expert cannot be determined by any general rule, and the competency of each particular witness is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. State of Ala.
...as well as that of experts, is admissible. See e. g., Hamilton v. State, 281 Ala. 448, 203 So.2d 684, 686-87 (1967); Smith v. State, 263 Ala. 1, 82 So.2d 296 (1955). And while the record is unclear, it suggests that a considerable amount of evidence might have been used in support of Davis'......
-
Nichols v. State
...troubles or upset, as contra-distinguished from any mental illness? 'A. That was my opinion at the time.' The case of Smith v. State, 263 Ala. 1, 82 So.2d 296, 297, sets out the law applicable to when a physician may testify to a patient's sanity either as an expert or as a non-expert, as '......
-
Brackin v. State
...has been in court and heard it all. (3) He may also give his opinion upon hypothetical cases propounded by counsel.' " Smith v. State, 263 Ala. 1, 3, 82 So.2d 296 (1955). "Although an expert witness may not express an opinion based on the opinion of another expert, he may base his opinion u......
-
Smith v. State, 8 Div. 378
...testimony given by Dr. J. B. Wiley. These facts are sufficient to form the basis for my views. The Supreme Court held in effect, 82 So.2d 296, that a physician who is qualified and licensed under the laws of our State to engage in the general practice of medicine is qualified as an expert t......