Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Charlotte Austin v. Michael Lee Weems
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-09-00127-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 23, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Charlotte Austin appealed a decision from the 23rd District Court in Brazoria County, Texas, concerning the admission of Deputy Jordan's opinion on the point of impact in an accident case. The concurring opinion, authored by Justice Terry Jennings, agrees with the majority on most points but addresses the preservation of Austin's complaint for appellate review regarding the trial court's ruling on expert testimony. Austin contended that the trial court erred by allowing Deputy Jordan to testify about the accident's point of impact, arguing that he was not qualified to provide reliable expert opinions. The rules require a party to make their objections clear and specific to preserve issues for appellate review. Although Austin's initial motion did not explicitly request the exclusion of Jordan's opinion, her arguments suggested a challenge to all of his opinions, particularly regarding the point of impact. Justice Jennings acknowledges that while Austin did not articulate her objections with precision, the context of her motions and statements at the hearing indicated a clear request to exclude Jordan's evidence. Thus, he believes she preserved her complaint for review. However, even if the trial court erred in admitting Jordan's opinion, Jennings concluded that Austin did not demonstrate that this error likely affected the judgment. Other witnesses corroborated Jordan's testimony, and opposing counsel did not highlight Jordan's opinion during the trial. Therefore, Jennings concurs with the court's judgment, finding no reversible error.