# Hopkins v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 22, 1972 · 480 S.W.2d 212

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776418

## Case

- **Full name:** Gregory K. HOPKINS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 22, 1972
- **Citations:** 480 S.W.2d 212; 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2062
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Morrison
- **Judges:** Roberts, Morrison
- **Cited by:** 117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776418

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that opinion testimony in regard to the ultimate fact issue is required to prove intoxication

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776418. Public record. Not legal advice.