![]() They also stand ready to exclude opinions phrased in terms of inadequately explored legal criteria. These provisions afford ample assurances against the admission of opinions which would merely tell the jury what result to reach, somewhat in the manner of the oath-helpers of an earlier day. Under Rules 701 and 702, opinions must be helpful to the trier of fact, and Rule 403 provides for exclusion of evidence which wastes time. The abolition of the ultimate issue rule does not lower the bars so as to admit all opinions. In each instance the opinion was allowed. 234, 17 A.2d 529 (1941), proper method of shoring ditch Schweiger v. ![]() Wilson, 25 Cal.2d 341, 153 P.2d 720 (1944), whether abortion necessary to save life of patient Clifford-Jacobs Forging Co. Many modern decisions illustrate the trend to abandon the rule completely. In other instances the rule was simply disregarded, and, as concessions to need, opinions were allowed upon such matters as intoxication, speed, handwriting, and value, although more precise coincidence with an ultimate issue would scarcely be possible. ![]() And in cases of medical causation, witnesses were sometimes required to couch their opinions in cautious phrases of “might or could,” rather than “did,” though the result was to deprive many opinions of the positiveness to which they were entitled, accompanied by the hazard of a ruling of insufficiency to support a verdict. Thus a witness could express his estimate of the criminal responsibility of an accused in terms of sanity or insanity, but not in terms of ability to tell right from wrong or other more modern standard. Efforts to meet the felt needs of particular situations led to odd verbal circumlocutions which were said not to violate the rule. The basis usually assigned for the rule, to prevent the witness from “usurping the province of the jury,” is aptly characterized as “empty rhetoric.” 7 Wigmore §1920, p. The rule was unduly restrictive, difficult of application, and generally served only to deprive the trier of fact of useful information. The older cases often contained strictures against allowing witnesses to express opinions upon ultimate issues, as a particular aspect of the rule against opinions. In order to render this approach fully effective and to allay any doubt on the subject, the so-called “ultimate issue” rule is specifically abolished by the instant rule. The basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, in these rules is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact. Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. For example, in California, a witness who is incapable of expressing himself or herself or is incapable of understanding the duty to tell the truth, may be barred from testifying.(a) In General - Not Automatically Objectionable. ![]() In federal court and many state courts, such as New York and California, every person is presumed to be a competent to be a witness unless specified otherwise. However, unlike an expert witness, a lay witness may not testify to anything based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. ![]() Further, a lay witness may only testify to what is rationally based on their perception or firsthand knowledge, or what is helpful in clarifying testimony for the jury or in determining facts at issue. A lay witness, like any other witness, must limit testimony to matters which they have personal knowledge about. Unlike an expert witness, a lay witness does not need to be qualified in any area to testify in court. Any witness who is not testifying as an expert witness. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |