When I defended doctors and hospitals in malpractice cases, a medical expert was generally required to testify that opinions re causation were based on "reasonable medical probability."

Now that I am prosecuting, I need to know if the medical expert has to testify to some higher level of probability regarding causation of injuries from an alleged criminal act, given that the burden of proof is higher in a criminal case.

I have been told by some that "reasonable medical probability" is enough in criminal cases, but would appreciate anyone who has case law on this providing me with a cite. Thanks.

A cursory Lexis search came up with Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)in which the court stated: "Thus, assuming that the causation standard articulated in the civil case is applicable here, the question before us is whether the evidence as a whole shows in "reasonable medical probability" causal connection between...." Thus, at least in this case the civil standard applied.

"reasonable medical probability". Everythign else would be an impermissible question on the legal burden of proof.