holding that opinion testimony in regard to the ultimate fact issue is required to prove intoxication
How later courts described this case
- holding that opinion testimony in regard to the ultimate fact issue is required to prove intoxication
- trial court correctly precluded the expert from testifying about the “competency” and “credibility” of a State witness because expert testimony is not admissible for impeachment purposes
- psychiatric testimony not permissible for impeachment purposes
- repudiating the “invasion of the province of the jury” rule
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION
MORRISON, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction and in that portion of the majority opinion which discusses the invasion of the province of the jury. See the opinion I prepared for the Court in Cordero v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 160 , 297 S.W.2d 174 .
Further, I agree with the majority and do not conclude that in the case at bar the court erred in excluding witness Yero’s testimony. I cannot, however, bring myself to agree with that portion of the majority opinion which pronounced an inflexible rule which does not permit any psychiatric testimony for impeachment purposes. I do not read the holding of the Supreme Court of California in Ballard v. Supreme Court of San Diego County, 64 Cal.2d 159 , 49 Cal.Rptr. 302 , 410 P.2d 838 , as does the majority. I quote from Ballard, supra:
“Thus, in rejecting the polar extremes of an absolute prohibition and an absolute requirement that the prosecutrix submit to a psychiatric examination, we have accepted a middle ground, placing the matter in the discretion of the trial judge.”
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction but not upon the reasoning set forth in the majority opinion as I read it.