Opinion

• Library: Objections Guidebook (2022 Ed.)

Opinion

Expert Opinion

Form of Question/Evidentiary Record Form of Objection

· Insufficient basis to enable reasonably reliable opinion (when limited basis for opinion conceded on direct examination, voir dire, or cross-examination).

· Hypothetical question assumes facts or data not of record (must specify facts or data omitted).

· Opinion involves the credibility of a witness.

· The testimony will confuse the jury and not assist the jury.

· Hypothetical question assumes [opinion is offered on basis of] insufficient facts or data to enable a reasonably reliable opinion (must specify facts or data omitted).

· The expert is relying on facts or data that is not reasonably reliable.

General Rule

· The facts or data in a particular case on which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by the expert or hypothesized to the expert, or both. An opinion (other than one stated on cross-examination) that is based in part or whole on hypothesized facts may not be based on facts or data not of record or not admissible as evidence, and the facts or data on which the expert bases an opinion must be sufficient to reasonably support a reasonably reliable opinion. Information communicated to the expert outside the courtroom—documents, exhibits, statements, inspection—specified in foundation testimony and not itself inadmissible as hearsay may be considered, subject to cross-examination.

Subject/Discipline Form of Objection

· Question calls for an opinion on a matter that is not a proper subject for expert opinion.

· Question [opinion offered] lacks proper foundation: It calls for conclusion based on insufficiently established system, discipline, method, or procedure.

General Rules

· Section 490.065.1, RSMo Supp. 2021, amended August 28, 2017, reenacted the standard for admission of expert testimony that was controlling before 2017 in certain designated cases: cases where there is no right to a jury trial, cases brought under domestic relations statutes, actions adjudicated in juvenile court or family court, and probate proceedings. The statutory foundation requirements must be met to admit expert testimony in those cases with no right to a jury trial. Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145, 173–78 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006), overruled on other grounds, Badahman v. Catering St. Louis, 395 S.W.3d 29, 40 (Mo. banc 2013). For non-jury cases expert testimony is permissive “if the expert will assist” the factfinder. But expert testimony is...