Section 13.6 When Can Expert Testimony Be Admitted?

• Library: Sources of Proof (2014 Ed.)

C. (§13.6) When Can Expert Testimony Be Admitted?

Regardless of the test, the admissibility of expert testimony requires a showing that the testimony will assist the trier of fact. Section 490.065.1, RSMo 2000. Determination of whether the testimony will assist the trier is within the discretion of the trial court, Housman v. Fiddyment, 421 S.W.2d 284, 289 (Mo. banc 1967), and the trial court’s discretion in deciding to admit or exclude expert testimony has been described as broad, Moheet v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 154 S.W.3d 393, 401 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). Questions “of the qualification of a witness as an expert in the field concerning which his testimony is sought and the necessity for admission of expert testimony in a given situation” will not be disturbed on appeal without a showing that the trial court abused that discretion. Baker v. Ford Motor Co., 501 S.W.2d 11, 18 (Mo. 1973) (emphasis added) (quoting Yocum v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 349 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Mo. 1961)); State v. Stevens, 467 S.W.2d 10, 23 (Mo. 1971).

A showing that the testimony will assist the fact-finder may be insufficient. Missouri courts have expressed different opinions as to whether expert testimony is admissible only when it is “necessary” to the fact-finder or when it is merely helpful or of assistance. Several decisions have held that expert testimony is admissible when it is “likely to be helpful to the jury.” Sch. Dist. of City of Independence, Mo., No. 30 v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 750 S.W.2d 442, 452 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988); Ryan v. Parker, 812 S.W.2d 190, 194 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991); City of St. Louis v. City of Bridgeton, 806 S.W.2d 717, 719 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (§ 490.065.1 authorizes expert testimony when it will assist the trier of fact in understanding an issue). But see Hewitt v. City of Kansas City, 761 S.W.2d 679, 682 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) (expert testimony was allowed only when necessary, and jurors could draw their own conclusions as to the danger of the roadway).

The exclusion of expert testimony is reviewed with deference on appeal. “A trial court does not usually commit reversible error by mere exclusion of expert testimony, even if the offered testimony is relevant and admissible.” In re Estate of Dean, 967 S.W.2d 219, 224 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). Dean stated that such a decision is reviewed on an abuse-of-discretion standard and will be upheld unless the ruling “is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it shocks this court’s sense of justice and it is clearly against the logic of the surrounding circumstances.” Id.

Some subjects do not require expert testimony. For example, expert testimony is unnecessary when the question is one of acceptable practice within a profession and statutes and building codes define the duty...