An opinion on an ultimate issue is not automatically objectionable.

An opinion on an ultimate issue is not automatically objectionable.

• A. An opinion is not automatically objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.
• B. An opinion is always objectionable if it addresses an ultimate issue.
• C. Ultimate issue opinions are always admissible.
• D. Witnesess may not express opinions on ultimate issues.

Answer: (A)

The main concept here is that opinions addressing an ultimate issue are not automatically objectionable under the rules. Rule 704 permits witnesses to offer opinions that touch on the ultimate questions the jury must decide, as long as the testimony is helpful and based on the witness’s perception or expertise, and it doesn’t run afoul of other rules. This means a witness can testify that a defendant acted negligently or had the intent required by a charge, for example, if that opinion aids the jury in understanding the facts. However, the testimony must still pass the usual tests for admissibility: it must be relevant, not unfairly prejudicial, and properly grounded in perception or expertise; it should not be a legal conclusion that usurps the judge’s role. In criminal cases there are additional nuances about certain mental-state opinions (expert testimony about whether the defendant had the required mental state) that can be restricted, but the general rule remains that an ultimate-issue opinion is not automatically objectionable. This is why the statement that such opinions are not automatically objectionable is the best choice, rather than claims that they are always admissible, always objectionable, or that witnesses may never express such opinions.

The main concept here is that opinions addressing an ultimate issue are not automatically objectionable under the rules. Rule 704 permits witnesses to offer opinions that touch on the ultimate questions the jury must decide, as long as the testimony is helpful and based on the witness’s perception or expertise, and it doesn’t run afoul of other rules. This means a witness can testify that a defendant acted negligently or had the intent required by a charge, for example, if that opinion aids the jury in understanding the facts. However, the testimony must still pass the usual tests for admissibility: it must be relevant, not unfairly prejudicial, and properly grounded in perception or expertise; it should not be a legal conclusion that usurps the judge’s role. In criminal cases there are additional nuances about certain mental-state opinions (expert testimony about whether the defendant had the required mental state) that can be restricted, but the general rule remains that an ultimate-issue opinion is not automatically objectionable. This is why the statement that such opinions are not automatically objectionable is the best choice, rather than claims that they are always admissible, always objectionable, or that witnesses may never express such opinions.