Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
34. Should the court admit the witness's opinion?
The driver testified at trial that she had inflicted the injuries, as her negligence had caused the crash in which she was injured, but that she had not done so intentionally. She then called as a witness her treating psychiatrist to give his opinion that the driver had been mentally unbalanced, but not self-destructive, at the time of the crash.
A driver sued her insurance company on an accident insurance policy covering personal injuries to the driver. The insurance company defended on the ground that the driver's injuries were intentionally self-inflicted and therefore excluded from the policy's coverage.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
FRE 704 states that «An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.» This means that witnesses may be able to give opinions on ultimate issues. However, there are exceptions. For example, a witness will generally not be permitted to give an opinion that amounts to an assertion of how the case should be decided. A qualified expert may help the jury understand facts that are closely related to a rule of law, but an expert will generally be prohibited from applying a legal standard and coming to a conclusion based on that application of the law to the facts.
D is correct. FRE 702 would allow the psychiatrist to give his expert opinion about whether the driver had been mentally unbalanced, but not self-destructive at the time of the crash, because such an opinion would be based on specialized knowledge that would be helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the driver's mental state. This would then inform the trier of fact's determination of whether the crash was intentional or not.
A is incorrect. It is true that if the psychiatrist were being called to testify and evaluate the driver's credibility, that would be improper — credibility determinations are for the jury to decide. However, the testimony is not being offered to evaluate the credibility of the driver as a witness, but rather, to support a particular finding regarding her mental state at the time of the crash that gave rise to the suit.
B is incorrect. Although FRE 704(b) prohibits an expert from testifying that a criminal defendant had or did not have the requisite mental state to commit the crime charged, that rule is applicable to criminal cases only. There is no absolute bar to such testimony in a civil case such as this. Although it may still be impermissible for an expert to give an opinion on the legal outcome of a case, here, the psychiatrist is only looking to testify regarding the nature of the diver's mental state at the time of the crash, not applying legal rules to come to dispositive conclusions.
C is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. FRE 705 allows an expert to state an opinion «without first testifying to the underlying facts or data» as long as the other requirements of FRE 702 are met.