§ 1-10 Expert Witness

• Library: South Carolina Requests to Charge - Criminal (SCBar) (2023 Ed.)

§ 1-10 Expert Witness

Although lay witnesses are limited to testifying about facts within their knowledge and are not allowed to give opinions, certain witnesses, who by their training, education or experience are considered experts in a particular field, may give their opinions in that field based upon the facts of a matter and their conclusions. These opinions constitute evidence to be considered by you in connection with all of the other testimony and evidence in the case. You may consider the expert's opinion just as you do all other evidence in this case. It is for the jury to give it such weight as you, in your experience and discretion, may determine. You must weigh such evidence and accept or reject it in the same manner that you treat all other evidence in this case.

The testimony of experts on a subject that is little known to the general public is entitled to consideration. Such testimony, however, must be submitted to your judgment and consideration to be weighed by you as a part of the evidence in connection with all the other facts in this case. The testimony of experts is to aid and assist you as jurors, not to dominate or control you in the decision of questions of facts. Their opinions and deductions from the evidence before you, and their judgments and opinions, do not preclude yours. You are required to decide disputed questions after comparison and consideration of all the evidence in this case.

Normally, a person cannot give opinion testimony. As a general rule, when a person testifies, they must testify as to what they saw, heard, or sensed by smell, or something of that nature. However, there is an exception when someone is qualified because of education or experience. They are permitted to give their opinion in certain areas if the Court qualifies them that way. Though a witness has been qualified as an expert, this does not mean that you must accept the opinion, but it is evidence for you to utilize in any way you see fit.

You should consider expert opinion received in evidence in this case and give it such weight as you feel it deserves. An expert witness' testimony is to be given no greater weight than that of other witnesses simply because the witness is an expert. You are not required to accept an expert's opinion even though it is not contradicted. If you decide an opinion of an expert is not based upon sufficient education and experience or if you conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound or you feel it is outweighed by other evidence, you may disregard the opinion entirely. Give the testimony of experts the weight, if any, that you feel it should receive.

? State v. Douglas, 380 S.C. 449, 503, 671 S.E.2d 606, 609 (2009) ("The same tests which are commonly applied in the evaluation of ordinary evidence are to be used in judging the weight and sufficiency of expert testimony. As with any witness, the jury is free to accept or reject the testimony of an expert witness. The fact that Herod was qualified as an expert did not require the jury to accord her testimony any greater weight than that given to any other witness." (citing State v. Milian-Hernandez, 287 S.C. 183, 186, 336 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1985), Anderson v. Campbell Tile Co., 202 S.C. 54, 24 S.E.2d 104 (1943))); see also id. at 501-02, 671 S.E.2d at 608. ("We find the testimony given by Herod in the present case simply was not required to be presented by an expert witness. Herod testified only as to her personal observations and experiences, and her interview with the Victim in this case. Accordingly, we find it was unnecessary for the trial court to have qualified her as an expert. However, although Herod did not need to be so qualified in this case, we nonetheless affirm the result reached by the Court of Appeals, because Douglas suffered no prejudice either as a result of Herod's testimony or by her qualification as an expert.") (finding that, where the only opinion an improperly qualified expert witness gave was that she concluded victim needed a medical exam, and a pediatric nurse practitioner thereafter examined victim and determined she had injuries consistent with past penetration, there is no conceivable prejudice to defendant from witness's testimony).

? State v. White, 382 S.C. 265, 270 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ("[A]ll expert testimony under Rule 702, SCRE, imposes on the trial courts an affirmative and meaningful gatekeeping duty. To the extent the court of appeals opinion may be construed as excluding a gatekeeping role for trial courts in connection with nonscientific (or experienced based) expert testimony, such construction is rejected. All expert testimony must satisfy the Rule 702 criteria, and that includes the trial court's gatekeeping function in ensuring the proposed expert testimony meets a reliability threshold for the jury's ultimate consideration.") ("This language makes no relevant distinction between 'scientific' knowledge and 'technical' or 'other specialized' knowledge. It makes clear that any such knowledge might become the subject of expert testimony . . . . Hence, as a matter of language, the Rule applies its reliability standard to all 'scientific,' 'technical,' or 'other specialized' matters within its scope. Reliability is a central feature of Rule 702 admissibility, and our jurisprudence is in complete accord." (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526...