## Facts

- Dr. A.H. Marshall executed a will on April 30, 1968, and later executed two codicils; he died on July 29, 1968.
- The will made specific bequests of home and office furniture and equipment, and placed the residue in a trust directing annual income payments to various individuals and to religious, charitable, and fraternal organizations.
- Marshall’s daughter, Julia Amma Barnes, her husband, and their two children were each left $5 per year.
- The estate was inventoried at about $525,400.
- Barnes filed a will contest against the principal beneficiaries and other interested parties, alleging Marshall was not of sound mind and lacked testamentary capacity when he executed the will and codicils.
- Barnes presented lay witnesses who described Marshall as claiming God spoke directly to him, that he was a prophet with special powers, and that he could “turn people over to God” for punishment.
- Lay witnesses also testified Marshall ran for Congress and for President on unusual platforms; became intensely emotional when discussing divine punishment (including pounding his fists and appearing physically agitated); and engaged in bizarre conduct such as leaving his house wearing only a nightgown and exposing himself in a workplace.
- Additional lay testimony described extreme and unreasonable jealousy toward his wife and other behavior said to reflect mental illness rather than mere oddity.
- Several lay witnesses, after describing their observations, gave opinions that Marshall was not of sound mind.
- Barnes also offered two physicians who opined Marshall suffered from manic-depressive psychosis and was of unsound mind.
- Defendants argued the evidence showed eccentricity rather than legal incapacity, stressed that Marshall continued to function in daily life and managed affairs, and contended any impairment was intermittent and that he executed the will during a lucid interval.
- The trial court submitted the case to the jury; the jury found the will and codicils were not valid because Marshall was not of sound mind when he executed them.
- Some beneficiaries appealed, challenging (among other things) the sufficiency of the evidence, admission of events occurring years before execution, admission of lay opinions of unsound mind, exclusion/limitation of certain defense opinion testimony, and trial management rulings (voir dire and instructions).

## Issues

1. Whether Barnes presented substantial evidence of lack of testamentary capacity at the time of execution sufficient to submit the will contest to the jury.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Marshall’s conduct and mental condition from years before the will and codicils as too remote to bear on his mental state at execution.
3. Whether the court properly admitted lay opinion testimony that Marshall was of unsound mind (given the witnesses’ observations), and whether limitations on a defense lay opinion of sanity required reversal.
4. Whether restrictions during voir dire and refusal of requested defense instructions constituted reversible error.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment setting aside the will and codicils.
- The court held Barnes made a submissible case on lack of testamentary capacity; viewing the evidence most favorably to the verdict, the lay testimony and medical testimony supported the jury’s finding.
- The court held evidence of prior conduct and earlier episodes was admissible when it had a direct bearing on mental condition at execution; time distance affected weight for the jury rather than admissibility as a matter of law.
- The court held lay witnesses could state opinions on soundness of mind when they had adequate opportunity to observe and first related facts supporting the opinion, and it found no reversible error in the trial court’s handling of defense opinion testimony.
- The court found no prejudicial error in the challenged voir dire rulings or in the refusal of requested defense instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Testamentary capacity generally requires that, at the time of execution, the testator understands the nature of making a will, knows the nature and extent of the property, and recognizes the natural objects of the testator’s bounty and the intended disposition.
- Medical mental illness does not automatically defeat testamentary capacity; the controlling question is whether the legal capacity test is met at execution, including whether delusions materially affect the testamentary act.
- Proof of eccentricity, unusual beliefs, or moral views alone is not enough; however, evidence of delusions and abnormal conduct, supported by medical testimony, can support a finding of incapacity when tied to the will-making decision.
- Evidence of acts, statements, and mental condition from before (and around) execution is admissible if it has a direct bearing on the testator’s condition at the time of execution; remoteness usually goes to weight, not admissibility, especially where the condition is shown as continuing.
- Lay opinion testimony about soundness of mind is admissible when the witness had sufficient opportunity to observe and relates the observed facts that form the basis for the opinion; trial courts have discretion in regulating such testimony and related trial management.

## Conclusion

Barnes v. Marshall affirmed a jury verdict invalidating Dr. Marshall’s will and codicils for lack of testamentary capacity, holding that extensive lay accounts of grandiose religious and political delusions and bizarre behavior, together with physician testimony diagnosing manic-depressive psychosis, provided substantial evidence for the jury; the court also approved admission of earlier mental-condition evidence with a direct bearing on capacity at execution and permitted lay opinions on sanity when supported by observed facts, finding no reversible error in voir dire or instructions.


Barnes v. Marshall, 467 S.W.2d 70 (1971)