Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Notes alienationissues in question did she love her

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: t period after the injury, and in effect was malingering. To offset this medical testimony, Salinas called three lay witnesses and tendered proof that Salinas had complained of present existing pain at various times subsequent to his injury. Issue: Was it proper to have received over hearsay objection, Salinas' out of court statements offered by him, not for purposes of medical treatment (not 803(4)), with respect to his pain as statement of then existing physical condition under 803(3)? Holding: Yes. These statements were properly admitted. o Statements of existing bodily pain need not be made to a physician in order to be admissible. Notes: Texas law finds these come in under the common law forerunner to 803(3)...a statement of then existing pain. If it is a statement about past pain or physical sensation, it can't come in unless it is made for medical treatment! (Then may come in under 803(4)) Statement made with respect to a present condition: Lying and ambiguity still a danger, but we no longer have perception and memory..because we are not going anywhere else after we go into his noggin. (Statement was made a...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online