# Scott v. State > Alabama Court of Appeals · May 11, 1948 · 34 Ala. App. 18 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9825071 ## Case - **Full name:** Scott v. State. - **Court:** Alabama Court of Appeals - **Decided:** May 11, 1948 - **Citations:** 34 Ala. App. 18; 37 So. 2d 670; 1948 Ala. App. LEXIS 573 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** On rehearing - **Judges:** Carr - **Cited by:** 10 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/9825071 ## Opinion text On Rehearing. In our original opinion we sustained the ruling of the lower court in his view that the undertaker or mortician possessed sufficient experience and qualifications to testify that in his opinion the inflicted pistol-shot wounds caused the death of the deceased. On application for rehearing it is insisted that we did not give due weight and consideration to the cases of Jones v. State, 155 Ala. 1 , 46 So. 579 , and Anderson v. State, 19 Ala.App. 606 , 99 So. 778 . We did not fail to note that these cases were cited in brief of counsel in support of the position that the court was in error in admitting the evidence. ' However, the facts there were so dissimilar to those in the case at bar that we did not deem it necessary to point out the distinction. In the Jones case, the court observed: “Witnesses Fairley and Bramlett, neither of whom were shown to be experts, were permitted to testify” etc. In the Anderson case [ 19 Ala.App. 606 , 99 So. 779 ], the cause of death became a very serious factual conflict. A physician had given as his opinion that death was caused by a “diseased and ruptured blood vessel leading off from his heart.” In passing on the question the author of the opinion cited the Jones case, supra, and inadvertently stated that the court held in the Jones case that only a medical expert could draw such a conclusion. The opinion in the Jones case makes no reference h> medical experts but only experts. The effect of the holding in the Anderson case is that the mere fact that a person may be an undertaker does not per se make him qualified to give the testimony of instant concern. From aught appearing no effort was made in the Anderson case to qualify the-witness by showing his experience and observation. “To authorize a witness to give an: opinion as an expert, it must appear that, by study, practice, experience, or observation as to the particular subject, he has-acquired a knowledge beyond that of ordinary witnesses.” Clemons v. State, 167 Ala. 20 , 52 So. 467, 471 . In the rather recent case of Hicks v. State [ 247 Ala. 439 , 25 So.2d 140 ], cited in our original opinion, the Supreme Court held: “The nature of a wound or injury, its probable cause and effect can be stated by expert medical witnesses, or witnesses, shown to be familiar with such questions;, such as, an undertaker, or others showing; competency. Whether a witness is shown to possess the requisite qualifications is. a preliminary question said to be largely within the discretion of the court.” In the case at bar the wounded man died' a short time after receiving three pistol-shot inflictions, one in the hand, one in the-chest, and another which entered near the center of the back. The shots were fired from close range. 1 Clearly there was not a serious factual issue presented as to the cause of death. The other questions upon which insistence is made on application for rehearing had our attention and treatment when we prepared the original opinion. Any further elaboration would in effect be a. repetition. , The application for rehearing is overruled. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9825071. Public record. Not legal advice.