In a series of recent decisions the Court of Appeals has rejected opinion evidence for the reason, among others, that the opinion related to the ultimate fact in issue, or for the synonymous reason that it invaded the province of the jury. These decisions relate to opinion testimony offered by lay witness and expert alike, although an objection to expert testimony on the ground that it relates to the ultimate fact in issue is normally weaker in force than the same objection when it is advanced to rule out lay testimony. When the expert testifies, by hypothesis, the lay judge or juror is sub- stantially less able to draw an appropriate inference, specialized knowledge based on education or experience being required. My notation of cases is intended to be illustrative only-not exhaustive.

Included in

Evidence Commons