Brief Fact Summary. Testator made a will bequeathing a large portion of his estate to several charities, churches and fraternal organizations. Plaintiff, testator’s daughter, contested the will on grounds that testator was not of sound mind at the time of execution.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Evidence showing occurrences involving the testator year prior to the execution of a will can be admissible to show the testator was not of sound mind at the time of execution if such occurrences have a direct bearing on the testator’s condition at the time of execution.
Whether the evidenced presented showed that the testator was of sound mind on the day he executed his will?
Whether the trial court erred in refusing certain questions of the Defendants to be asked of the jurors on voir dire?
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of occurrences years prior to the execution of the will because it was too remote to have any probative value?
Whether the trial court erred in permitting lay witnesses to express an opinion that the testator was of unsound mind?
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit a defense witness to express an opinion that testator was of sound mind?
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give jury instructions offered by the Defendant?
Yes. Affirmed. The evidence showed that the testator’s views on government, religion, morals, and finances went beyond peculiarities and eccentricities and a reasonable jury could find him of unsound mind.
No. Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rulings relating to the voir dire examination as these rulings will not be disturbed unless there is a clear indication of abuse of discretion.
No. Affirmed. Evidence of a testator’s mental condition prior to the execution of the will is admissible if it tends to show his condition at the time of the execution. Here the evidence was that the testator suffered from an incurable mental disease which has a direct bearing on the testator’s mental condition at the time of the execution of the will.
No. Affirmed. The refusal to permit this witness to testify was harmless error because ten other lay witnesses were allowed to testify to the same opinion.
No. Affirmed. The proposed instructions were cautionary instructions and these are usually within the discretion of the trial court at to whether or not to include.
It is well settled that, if in a specific instance the evidence should not have been excluded, the error is harmless if the same evidence is found in the testimony of the same or other witnesses, given before or after the objection was sustained.View Full Point of Law