Pmbr - Evidence - Art Vii - Opinions

Front 1

Art VII - Opinions of lay people

Back 1

Opinions of lay people are admissible ONLY when witness has personal knowledge,

then they must be

rationally based
and
helpful to the factfinder (relevant).

Lay opinion Examples:

Car accident case, can testify as to color, speed driving. BUT MAY NOT testify as to legal conclusions EG imo, car was driving recklessly.
EXAMPLES OF PROPER
Identity of a person
Sensory impressions
Value of a property
Familiarty with a person 's handwriting
Sanity, but NOT legal competency
Phsyical condition (drunk, etc, but not "alcoholic, schizophrenic)

Front 2

Art VII - Expert Opinion - Qualifications

Back 2

Experts must have

1. special knowledge, skill, education, or experience.
2. Opinion must be helpful or assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence.
3. Opinion must be within the expert's field of expertise.

Front 3

Art VII - Expert Opinion - Basis - On what facts may base opinion?

Back 3

May be based on

1. Facts "perceived" by her, or made known to her, at or before the trial, or facts about fatal accident "made known at trial", despite lack of personal knowledge.

2. Facts reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. Can be facts not in evidence or inadmissible hearsay.

Need not give basis on direct, may be required to disclosed on cross.

Front 4

Art VII - Expert Opinion - Opinions on Ultimate Issues

Back 4

Unlike at CL, expert may testify as to an ultimate issue.

EG - whether a testator had mental capacity to know what he's divising is proper, but whether he had "legal capacity" would not be proper. Can ask a question going to the standard, but not about triggering the standard.

Front 5

Art VII - Expert Opinion - Opinions on Ultimate Issues in Criminal Cases

Back 5

May not give an opinion as to whether criminal defendant did nor did not have a particular mental state constituting an element of a crime charged or a defense thereto.