While the testimony of a layman or expert may be offensive for a number of reasons (e.g., relevance, bias, or lack of personal knowledge), Rule 704 clarifies that a statement of opinion is not objectionable simply because it deals with a „final issue“ that the trial judge must decide, such as whether an element of the offence has been proved. See G.S. 8C-704. Compare State v. Riddick, 315 N.C. 749 (1986) (an arsonist`s report in a murder case that a flammable liquid burned on the floor and „ran“ to the kitchen was not objectionable because it was an ultimate question of causation to be decided by the jury) with State v. Elkins, 210 N.C. App. 110 (2011) (the officer`s testimony in the form of a statement that the defendant „was in fact the author in this case“ was an error because it was not helpful to the jury – the testimony was „only an opinion on the final question of the defendant`s guilt“). Section 704 is of particular importance because it expressly states that an expert report „is not objectionable merely because it concerns a final question,“ which is in direct contradiction to older jurisprudence, which reserved findings on final questions to the jury alone. As explained in the Advisory Committee`s comments, the rules of procedure are intended to assist in establishing the facts.
„In order to make this approach fully effective and to dispel any doubt on the matter, the so-called `ultimate question` rule is explicitly abolished by the instant rule. Common law restrictions that prevented an expert from testifying on a final issue were considered „excessively restrictive, difficult to use, and generally intended only to conceal information useful to Trier.“ The situation in English law is different from that in the United States, as there is no rule in England and Wales preventing an expert from giving an opinion on the „ultimate question“. This has been confirmed by English courts in both criminal cases[10] and civil cases[11]. While historical evidence suggests that Congress wanted the rule to apply only to psychiatric testimony, some courts have ruled that the rule applies to all opinions on whether a defendant possessed the state of mind required to commit the crime. See United States v. Newman, 849 F.2d 156, 165 (5th Cir.1988) (an expert „cannot comment on the final questions of whether the accused was actually induced to commit the crime or was not convicted“). What is the objection? Objections to opinions on legal standards or conclusions are often based on the assertion that such testimony „is within the jurisdiction of the jury,“ but this is an inaccurate expression of the rule, as any opinion that addresses an „ultimate problem“ in the case (e.g., degree of impairment, severity of injury, or intent of the accused) could be considered interference with jury function. and yet Article 704 allows it. The best reasons for objecting to testimony on legal issues are: (i) the testimony interferes with the court`s jurisdiction to determine what the law is and instruct the jury accordingly; or (ii) the expert`s opinion is not helpful because the jury may as well decide whether the evidence presented at trial meets the legal requirements expressed by the court. See State v.
Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373 (2000). The rules of evidence are designed to consider evidence that the jury may consider in order to prevent testimony that is mere opinion from violating the jury`s decision-making domain. Rule 704(b) reversed the trend of allowing expert testimony on the latter issue. Because great trust is placed in the jury system, limiting what a jury can consider limits the jury`s options. As in the past, lay witnesses can only testify on facts. [2] Cases where Rule 704 is interpreted have allowed lay opinions and experts to decide a wide range of „ultimate issues“ in the case (such as impairment, intent, causation, nature of injury and self-defence), provided the opinion is based on a reasonable basis and useful to the decision-making judge. See, for example, State v. Speight, 166 N.C. App. 106 (2004), partially assigned and partially modified for other reasons, 359 N.C. 602 (2005) (official empowered to give the lay opinion that the accused was impaired based on the officer`s perceptions and observations of the accused at the scene of the accident, interviews with witnesses and the smell of alcohol); State v.
Parker, 354 N.C. 268 (2001) (experts can correctly say that the victim`s death was „murder“); State v. Teague, 134 N.C. App. 702 (1999) (expert correctly states that gunshot wound to head shows „intent to cause death“); State v. Boyd, 343 N.C. 699 (1996) („Expert reports shall not be rendered inadmissible on the ground that they include final questions to be decided by the jury“) State v. Najewicz, 112 N.C.
App. 280 (1993) („A lay witness may testify in the form of an expert opinion that includes a final question to be decided by the jury“ if the report is both „(1) rationally based on the witness`s perception and (2) useful for a clear understanding of the witness` testimony“); State v. Jennings, 333 N.C. 579 (1993) (expert who can duly testify that the victim was „tortured“ in a first-degree murder case); State v. Saunders, 317 N.C. 308 (1986) (The expert was duly allowed to testify that the injuries were „incompatible with self-defence“, although the claim of self-defence was an issue in this case). The 1975 Federal Rules of Evidence (and its state equivalents) explicitly authorized expert testimony to include testimony on ultimate matters if such testimony would be useful to the judge or jury. In 1984, Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) was added after the trial of John Hinckley, Jr. for attempting to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
The changes were partly the result of public reaction to Hinckley`s successful use of a foolish defense. [4] These amendments, particularly section 704(b), limit expert testimony. [5] Expressions of opinion are not admissible with respect to the ultimate question „whether a legal standard or conclusion is met, at least whether the standard is a legal concept of art that has a specific legal meaning that is not obvious to the witness“; However, the witness may testify (if appropriate and otherwise admissible) about the „underlying factual premise“ that would support such an opinion. State v. Parker, 354 N.C. 268 (2001). See, for example, State v. Hart, 179 N.C. App. 30 (2006), partly aff`d and rev`d in part, 361 N.C.
309 (2007) (no error on the part of the official in testifying that the accused was „next to“ drugs to establish indirect possession, when the officer never testified directly about the legal standard of „implied possession“); State v. Brown, 335 N.C. 477 (1994) (appropriate to prevent the expression of opinions that the defendant was unable to „conspiracy“ because „conspiracy“ includes a specific legal definition); State v. Silvers, 323 A.C. 646 (1989) (Lay witnesses cannot declare that an accused has „capacity to stand trial“ because it is a legal finding, but if it provides an adequate basis, the witness may testify as to whether the defendant is „capable of understanding the nature and purpose of the trial or of understanding his own position in relation to the proceedings. or assist in his defence in a rational and reasonable manner“); State v. Schaft, 322 N.C. 243 (1988) (The expert could not give the opinion that the defendant had exercised or not exercised an „intention and consideration“, as these are legal concepts of art, but should have testified that the defendant was incapable of „making or executing plans“ or „forming a certain intention to kill“ because these are relevant opinions, from the underlying facts); State v. Ledford, 315 A.C. 599 (1986) (Error in allowing expert to testify that victim`s injuries were the „proximate cause of death“ because it expressed the view that a legal test of causation was met). Testimony on the ultimate question of the guilt of the accused or the credibility of another witness is inadmissible, not because of rule 704, but because such testimony is not considered useful to the jury, which may equally well draw its own conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented.
See, for example, State v. Houser, 239 N.C. App. 410 (2015) (officer testifying as a lay witness could not enter jury province commenting on defendant`s credibility); State v. Elkins, 210 N.C. App. 110 (2011) („[T]he unanswered statements, which mean little more than the choice of sides, are rightly excluded as unhelpful under the rules.“) (interns Zitat weggelassen); Staat v. Turnage, 190 N.C. App. 123 (2008), teilweise aus anderen Gründen überarbeitet, 362 N.C.
