Section 17.49 Objections to Expert Testimony

• Library: Evidence 2017

XI. (§17.49) Objections to Expert Testimony

Although it is not always a proper objection to expert testimony that a question calls for an opinion on an ultimate issue, a party’s failure to timely object to the foundation or scientific principles underlying an expert’s testimony is fatal to that party’s efforts to re-address that issue on appeal. In State v. Butler, 24 S.W.3d 21, 25 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000), the court stated that a timely and specific objection made at the trial court level is essential when a party wishes to challenge an expert’s opinion (citing Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852, 860 (Mo. banc 1993)).

It is critical that a party promptly object to the foundation or the scientific principles underlying the expert’s opinion to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Hudson, 970 S.W.2d 855, 860 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998). “A claim after a trial that there was no adequate foundation for an expert’s opinion is not a subject for plain error review. Claims of inadequate foundation will not be considered for the first time on appeal.” State v. Honsinger, 386 S.W.3d 827, 829 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citation omitted). In Hudson, the court specifically warned about the failure to make a timely and specific objection to lack of foundation, stating that, “We will not review the contention of inadequate foundation raised for the first time on appeal.” Hudson, 970 S.W.2d at 860 (quoting State v. Jones, 569 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Mo. App. E.D. 1978)). Therefore, although expert testimony may not always be...