William Doyle v. State Texas

Appellant brings three points of error. First, he argues that the State should not have been allowed to bring a witness to rebut unforEseen testimony by Appellant himself, because the witness had not been disclosed as required by the courts discovery order. Second, he argues that two officers should not have been allowed to give testimony as to their opinion of whether Appellants acts were intentional or accidental since Appellants culpable mental state was a fact question for the jury. Third, Appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object when the State tried to link the implausibility of Appellants version of the events with his silence when asked if he needed medical aid.