Wigley v. Whitten
| Decision Date | 04 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 5849,5849 |
| Citation | 278 P.2d 412,78 Ariz. 224 |
| Parties | Jesse Floyd WIGLEY, Guardian of the Estate of John R. Wigley, an incompetent person, Appellant, v. Guy R. WHITTEN and Ardella D. Whitten, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Sharon Stanford and Robert R. Weaver, Phoenix, for appellant.
Johnson & Shelley, Mesa, for appellees.
For statement of facts and original opinion, see Wigley v. Whitten, 78 Ariz. 88, 276 P.2d 517.
Therein we said in effect that none of the lay witnesses who were denied the right to give their opinion concerning mental competency of John R. Wigley qualified by stating sufficient foundational facts. In this statement we were in error as to the witness James David, bank manager in Chandler, Arizona. This witness did relate an incident wherein Mr. Wigley exhibited some abnormal conduct which we believe would qualify the witness David to give a laymen's opinion concerning mental competency of Mr. Wigley. We are unable to conclude, however, that the failure of the court to admit this opinion could possibly have had a prejudicial effect. All the facts concerning Mr. Wigley's conduct on this occasion having a bearing upon his competency were before the juors. They were in a position to draw practically as good a conclusion from these facts as the witness. Under these conditions, where the witness' opinion would of necessity be of slight value to the jury and to the court sitting as a court of equity, and where the jury refused to follow the opinion testimony of experts, it is inconceivable that either the jury or the court could possibly have been influenced to decide the matter differently had the witness been allowed to give his opinion that Mr. Wigley was incompetent. If excluded evidence is of such slight value that its admission doubtless would not have changed the result, the exclusion is mere technical error. 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, section 1031; Ham v. Miss C. E. Mason's School, The Castle, 249 Ky. 478, 61 S.W.2d 7.
The former opinion is adhered to.
PHELPS, C. J., and LA PRADE and UDALL, JJ., concur.
STANFORD, J., having disqualified himself, did not participate in the determination of this appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Purton's Estate and Guardianship, In re
...employed in reaching this particular result. See Wigley v. Whitten, 78 Ariz. 88, 276 P.2d 517 (1954), opinion adhered to 78 Ariz. 224, 278 P.2d 412 (1955). Being satisfied that the order from which appeal is taken did not make any allowance for expenditures prior to the court order of March......
-
Fridenmaker v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona
...the jury, affected a verdict or affected the court's directed verdict. The error was technical, not reversible. Wigley v. Whitten, 78 Ariz. 224, 278 P.2d 412 (1955). Having reviewed all contentions presented by appellant Fridenmaker and having found no reversible error the judgment of the t......
-
Minderman v. Perry
...1169. A wrong reason for a correct ruling is not reversible error. Wigley v. Whitten, 78 Ariz. 88, 276 P.2d 517, opinion adhered to 78 Ariz. 224, 278 P.2d 412. Margaret's second and third assignments of error are based on the court's Conclusions of Law Nos. 4 and '4. The duty to perform the......
-
Daru v. Martin
...where the whole subject has been fully developed by other evidence. Daly v. Williams, 78 Ariz. 382, 280 P.2d 701; Wigley v. Whitten, 78 Ariz. 224, 278 P.2d 412. This is especially true where testimony, if admitted, would not have affected the result. J & B Motors v. Margolis, 75 Ariz. 392, ......