State v. ChalaireState v. Chalaire
Appellant Louis J. Chalaire was charged by bill of information with simple burglary of the apartment of Laura Curry in New Orleans on November 23, 1965. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to serve 3\/2 years in the penitentiary.
For his defense Chalaire relied upon the combined plea of “not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.” In this connection, the testimony of an expert medical witness, Dr. Richard L. Stone, was heard. The sole contention raised on this appeal is that the trial judge committed error in not permitting Dr. Richard L. Stone to be asked whether his diagnosis of Chalaire’s mental condition coincided with the diagnosis of Dr. Pipes.
Dr. Stone, Chief of the Psychiatry Services at the Veterans Hospital in Nеw Orleans, testified for the defendant. In response to questions by defense counsel, he answered that Chalаire first came to the hospital in March 1964. At that time, his chief complaint was back pain, although he gavе a history of being nervous and restless. He was not found to have any “back condition”, but he did have a rather severe nervous disorder manifested in his behavior which was somewhat erratic; and it was difficult to “contact” аnd talk to him. He was restless and showed little or no emotion. Medication was administered to treat this condition until August when he was discharged.
Dr. Stone’s next contact with Chalaire was on May 26, 1965 when he was brought in by a coroner’s pickup order. It was represented at that time that Chalaire was hav
“Apparently,” Dr. Stone testified, “he does well when taking medicine and not too well when he does not.” When asked whether Chalaire was able to distinguish the difference between right and wrong when the crime occurred in November 1965, Doctor Stone stated that he could not sаy whether Chalaire could distinguish between right and wrong at a time when he did not see him. For, he asserted, there were times when Chalaire was unable to distinguish between right and wrong, but there were also many times when he was able to distingush between right and wrong.
At this point in the testimony, without laying the premise or predicate for the question, defense сounsel asked Dr. Stone if he would agree with Dr. Pipes’ diagnosis of Chalaire if he were told that the diagnosis showed the patient had schizophrenic reactions, mixed type, chronic, severe, with impartial remissions, and severe delusions of persecution, feelings of deep personal emotions, imperfect bеhavior and suicidal thoughts and ideas; whereupon the court sua sponte objected that the question was improper. The State’s attorney later joined in the objection, which was sustained, and defense counsel reserved a bill of exceptions. After the verdict, this bill of exceptions was made the basis of a motion for a new trial. That motion was denied.
We are of the opinion the rulings of the trial judge were corrеct. Generally, in Louisiana, according to our hearsay rule, a witness can testify only to facts within his knowledge, and he may not testify to any recital of facts heard by him, nor as to any impression or opinion that he mаy have. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 463 (1928). Opinion testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, however, when questions involving a knоwledge obtained only by means of special training or experience are at issue, provided the expert witness must state the facts upon which his opinion is based. La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 464, 465 (1928). Under these conditions an exception to the hearsay rule is permitted. But there is no authority to extend the exceptiоn and admit the opinion testimony of an expert based upon the opinion of another expert.
Dr. Piрes had not testified in the case, and there was no report in the record of the mental condition оf Chalaire prepared by Dr. Pipes. Defense counsel’s reference to Dr.
The question propounded to Dr. Stone was an effort to obtain an oрinion from him based upon the opinion of another doctor. Although the opinion of Dr. Stone, based upon the facts of which he had knowledge, was properly admitted, an opinion formed by him based upon the оpinion of another doctor was inadmissible. The authorities are in agreement that the opinion of an expert, however qualified, cannot be predicated upon the opinions and conclusions of others. Lewis v. Commonwealth,
Eor the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.